Case 3303410/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms M A Joralemon v The Governors of Ipswich School — 2021
- Case reference
- 3303410/2020
- Decision date
- 29 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Bloom Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms M A Joralemon
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs M A Joralemon was employed by The Governors of Ipswich School as the School’s Archivist from 5 September 2012. The tribunal found that relations deteriorated in late 2018 and that the claimant raised grievances in early 2019, but it rejected the claimant’s case that the later redundancy process was a sham or was driven by the Headmaster’s wish to see her leave because of disciplinary matters or grievances.
The tribunal accepted the respondent’s evidence that the school was under financial pressure, including a projected decline in fee-paying pupils, uncertainty around Brexit, and an increase of about 40% in teachers’ pension contributions, described as a rise of around £360,000. It found that the Archivist post was a genuine standalone role and that removing it would save about £40,000 in salary and ancillary costs. The tribunal held that the reason, and principal reason, for dismissal was redundancy within section 139(1)(b)(i) ERA 1996.
On fairness, the tribunal applied section 98(4) ERA 1996 and the usual redundancy guidance from Williams v Compare Maxam Limited, asking whether the respondent acted within the range of reasonable responses. It found that there was a proper consultation process, with three meetings on 17 May, 22 October and 5 November 2019, and that the delay between the first and second meetings was reasonable because the claimant’s grievances were dealt with first. It also found that there were no suitable alternative vacancies for her, that she did not apply for available roles, that she was not suitable for the new Director of Admissions, Marketing and Outreach role, and that it was reasonable not to keep the Archivist role in a part-time form.
The tribunal further found that the appeal process was fair. Mrs Childs considered the appeal in writing after the in-person hearing was cancelled, and the tribunal rejected the allegation that she acted in bad faith. The claim of unfair dismissal was therefore dismissed in full, and no monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the reason for dismissal was redundancy under section 98(2)(c) ERA 1996 and held the dismissal fair under section 98(4) ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- section 98(2)(c) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 139(1)(b)(i) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Williams v Compare Maxam Limited (1982) ICR 156
- range of reasonable responses
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.