Age Discrimination, Redundancy and the Burden of Proof – Guideline Ruling

Where an older employee is treated less favourably than a younger one in a similar position, the burden shifts onto the employer to prove that age discrimination had no effect on its decision-making. An Employment Tribunal (ET) made that point in the case of an administration manager who was…

Apr 05, 2023

The man had worked for a car sales company for more than 20 years when he was selected for redundancy. He contended that his dismissal was pre-determined and motivated by his age. The company asserted that it was conducting a necessary restructuring exercise and that his selection followed a fair procedure.

Ruling on the matter, the ET found that the principal reason for his dismissal was, as the company asserted, redundancy. Due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, the company had to reorganise its business and had a commercial and economic reason for making redundancies.

The ET did not consider that the manager who decided on the man’s selection for redundancy was guilty of conscious age discrimination. The man was warned in advance that his job was at risk and steps were taken to conduct a fair consultation and selection process and to minimise job losses.

In nevertheless upholding his age discrimination complaint, the ET found that he was less favourably treated than a younger colleague. There was no material difference between them in terms of skills and qualifications. Given those findings, it was for the company to provide an explanation. It had failed to provide cogent evidence of a non-discriminatory reason for the difference in treatment.

Also upholding his unfair dismissal claim, the ET noted that the redundancy process lacked transparency. It could not be discerned from the available evidence whether the selection criteria were applied fairly. His dismissal also did not fall within the range of reasonable responses in that it was tainted by age discrimination. The amount of his compensation, if not agreed, would be assessed at a further hearing.

Making Managerial Changes? Transparency is Always the Best Policy

When changes are being made to a company’s management structure, transparent consultation with those affected is always the best policy. An Employment Tribunal (ET) made that point in the case of a senior executive whose role was steadily reduced to the point where he felt that resignation was his only option. The man was employed as the operations director of a multinational business’s UK division. He was also one of the company’s statutory directors. The company was undergoing globalisation…

Dismissal for Misconduct Without a Reasonable Investigation is Rarely Fair

Dismissing an employee for misconduct is very unlikely to be viewed as fair if there has been no proper investigation and no consideration of either mitigation or the possibility of a lesser sanction. An Employment Tribunal (ET) made that point in the case of a veteran music teacher who was sacked for refusing to attend a staff meeting. The teacher, who had worked at the relevant school for 24 years, was told by her boss that attendance at the meeting was not optional. When she informed him…

Employment – The COVID-19 Chickens are Coming Home to Roost

Many businesses confronted by the existential crisis of the COVID-19 pandemic took swift steps to shed staff. However, as an Employment Tribunal (ET) ruling showed, the requirements of employment law were not suspended and, for those who failed to comply with them, the chickens are now coming home to roost. The case concerned a graphic designer who was made redundant a few days after the first lockdown came into force. His employer, a small company, experienced a precipitous decline in sales…