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.

Restrictive Covenants and Employers’ Legitimate Business Interests

When it comes to considering the enforceability or otherwise of restrictive covenants in employment contracts, judges are required to focus on the need of employers to protect their legitimate business interests. The Court of Appeal emphasised that point in a guideline case. A software company sought a pre-trial injunction against a former employee, alleging that he had breached a non-compete covenant in his employment contract. The covenant forbade him from working for a competitor for 12…

Small Employer Pays Heavily for Ignorance of the Acas Code

Ignorance of the Acas Code of Practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures is a positive invitation to Employment Tribunal (ET) proceedings. A small employer found that out to its cost after a cleaner was sacked by text message. When the woman launched proceedings, the owner of the six-employee business for which she worked contended that she had been dismissed for gross misconduct. He confirmed, however, that he had not followed the Acas Code and that, having never dismissed an employee…

Logistics Operative Succeeds in Post-Termination Victimisation Complaint

Victimisation of workers does not necessarily come to an end with the termination of their employment. The point was made by the case of a logistics operative who was labelled a troublemaker by a member of his former employer’s senior management team. Whilst working for his former employer, the operative, who suffered from anxiety and depression, lodged a grievance and issued an Employment Tribunal (ET) complaint of disability discrimination. Both those steps were agreed to be protected acts.…