Wayne Norman, aged 63, was made redundant from his role at a leading UK supermarket as senior construction consultant in March 2023.
Approaching his 23 rd anniversary working for the supermarket, Norman was informed that he would be at risk of redundancy for reason of company restructure in January 2023.
One of Norman’s colleagues in his 30s, Mr Farcas, was selected to continue in the remaining role, prompting Norman to discuss the decision with Line Manager, Liam Schofield.
Norman learned that he had been marked down in the ‘knowledge criteria score,’ for not having the ‘relevant construction qualifications,’ further to the absence of a construction degree.
Norman told the Tribunal that he felt ‘discredited’ for not having a degree, and ‘punished for growing up on a council estate without the opportunity to attend university,’ claiming that people in their 60s were less likely to have a degree than those in their 30s.
The defence to Norman’s claim was found to be inconsistent amidst Schofield’s claims that lack of qualification played no part in the scoring against the Claimant, with Judgement reading that it was ‘the actual additional knowledge which Mr Farcas could apply in his role which was the point of differentiation in his scoring against that of the Claimant,’ and that if the ‘indirectly discriminatory factor been absent, they would still have awarded the same scores to the claimant and Mr Farcas under the criterion of knowledge.’
Despite this, the Tribunal accepted Norman’s submissions that those over 60 were less likely to have a degree than those in their 30s, and in the absence of a defence to justify why the qualification criterion was used, found that Norman had suffered indirect age discrimination.
Importance of a Fair and Transparent Redundancy Process
The Tribunal ruled that ‘failure to conduct a reasonable process of consultation’ was sufficient reason to render the dismissal unfair. While the Supermarket had set up a ‘potentially fair’ scoring and criteria method, the Tribunal could not conclude that the criteria were applied fairly and reasonably.
The Supermarket was ordered to pay Norman £46,280.63 in compensation for unfair dismissal and a further £4,646.15 for injury to feelings as a result of indirect age discrimination.
This case acts as a warning to employers to exercise great care in following a fair redundancy process to avoid age discrimination claims.
Here at Fiona Bruce Solicitors, our specialist and Head of Employment Law, Tim Grainger, would be more than happy to assist with these types of cases, or any other employment queries. Tim is a member of the Employment Lawyers’ Association and has a wealth of experience in taking matters to Tribunal, as well as a strong track record in pursuing fair settlements for our clients.
Please contact Rebecca Hall on 01925 263273 or enquiries@fionabruce.co.uk for more information.
The contents of this post do not constitute legal advice and are provided for general information purposes only ■
