Case 3304232/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs K Lacey v Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust — 2024
- Case reference
- 3304232/2022
- Decision date
- 12 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto Appearances
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs K Lacey
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant worked as a Band 4 Administrative Assistant in the respondent's Bereavement Service until she was made redundant on 30 November 2021. The respondent relied on redundancy as the reason for dismissal after a reorganisation of administrative support, and the tribunal considered issues including consultation, alternative roles, the job evaluation process, and the appeal process.
The tribunal found that the respondent was entitled to reorganise to meet service needs, that the claimant's role disappeared, and that the claimant was offered the Band 4 role and other roles but could not take them up. It found that the consultation extended over a year, stopped when the claimant was too unwell to engage, and resumed when she returned.
The tribunal concluded that there was no unfairness in the decision to dismiss and that the respondent acted reasonably throughout. It dismissed the unfair dismissal complaint, but ordered that the claimant's deposit be returned.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the complaint of unfair dismissal was not well founded and dismissed it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment records that this complaint was withdrawn and dismissed on 13 May 2023. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment records that this complaint was withdrawn and dismissed on 13 May 2023. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- range of reasonable responses
- ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures
- redundancy
- some other substantial reason
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.