The claimant had been employed by the first-named respondent as a temporary teacher from August 2014 until August 2015 on a 12 month fixed term contract. The expiry of the fixed term contract was considered a dismissal for the purposes of the 1996 Order. The respondent argued that the dismissal was due to a combination of funding difficulties and the temporary nature of the contract.

The respondent argued that the dismissal was due to a combination of funding difficulties and the temporary nature of the contract. The tribunal held that, because the teaching staff was due to reduce by one, this was actually a redundancy situation as the requirements of the school had diminished. This was a clear temporary fixed-term contract where both contracting parties knew that it would end automatically on 31 August 2015 and where there had been no provision for and no reasonable expectation of renewal or extension. The respondent had actually offered a stage 1 meeting and an appeal to the decision, neither of which were availed of by the claimant.

The tribunal held that to arrange a selection process with a selection group and selection criteria for the redundancy would have been entirely artificial and would have ignored the reality of the situation. The core question for the tribunal was to determine whether the decision had been reached ‘fairly’ in all the circumstances of the case having regard to justice and equity. It was satisfied that it was and the claim was dismissed.
Practical lessons

This decision strongly advocates common sense and the tribunal made reference to the fact that both parties knew the temporary nature of the agreement and that it was not fair to “fix a small employer with artificial, unnecessary and expensive procedural requirements before it reaches an obvious decision.” It makes clear that dealing with temporary fixed term contracts is entirely different to dealing with staff on permanent contracts as there is no requirement for formal discussion or consultation. Essentially, while the expiry of this contract was technically labelled as a ‘redundancy situation’ the tribunal pointed out that the claimant had no reasonable expectation of renewal or extension.

In technical redundancy situations such as this, procedural redundancy steps are not automatically required especially where they would be taken ‘artificially and [at] unreasonable expense’. However, good practice should nonetheless be followed by giving an employee notice of termination, confirmation in writing and, as in this case, offering a discussion meeting and right of appeal.