In Ryan v T123 Ltd, a 62-year-old store supervisor, who was made redundant, was awarded over £27,000 by an Employment Tribunal because he was subjected to age discrimination and unfairly dismissed. The case highlights the importance of ensuring an impartial and fair redundancy procedure is followed and that employers can be held liable for careless remarks made by managers.
The facts of the case were as follows:
- In December 2008 - Mr Ryan made a complaint regarding a comment made by his manager, Mr Stephens. Mr Stephens had told him that it would make sense for him to be made redundant as he was due to retire in two years and he received a higher salary than other employees.
- In January 2009 - Mr Ryan was told that his job was at risk of redundancy. He was placed in a redundancy pool with two other candidates aged 54 and 33. Mr Ryan was the only candidate to be asked whether he wanted to take voluntary redundancy.
- In March 2009 - Mr Ryan was advised that he was given the lowest score of the pool. Mr Stephens conducted the scoring exercise with the managing director. Mr Ryan appealed the decision but did not receive a response. Mr Ryan raised a grievance, in which he was advised that Mr Stephens' comment was made 'on the spur of the moment' and that the decision would stand.
Mr Ryan then brought claims for unfair dismissal and age discrimination. The ET held that Mr Stephens' comment, and the fact that Mr Ryan was the only candidate to be offered voluntary redundancy, were enough to raise the inference that his employer selected Mr Ryan for redundancy due to his age. This was in addition to Mr Stephens' involvement in the redundancy selection process, despite his ageist remark, and the fact that some of the selection criteria could not be verified. The employer was, therefore, unable to refute the inference of age discrimination.
The ET awarded Mr Ryan £8,250 for injury to feelings for age discrimination and found the dismissal was automatically unfair as the employer failed to follow the statutory dismissal procedure, which was then in force. He was awarded compensation for two years' loss of earnings. Interestingly, however, the ET deducted one third of the compensation on the basis there was a one-in-three chance that Mr Ryan would have been made redundant in any event.
Best practice
The case highlights the importance of following a fair redundancy procedure, particularly in the scoring process of the candidates in the redundancy selection pool, as this will help to rebut any inference of discrimination. It is an obvious point but personal preference concerning the candidates should not factor into the process and careful consideration should be given to who conducts the procedure. If there is any risk that a manager might show bias, they should be removed from the process and someone impartial (e.g. from HR) should become involved.
Managers selecting individuals for redundancy from a pool should also only use and apply objective criteria. In this instance 'flexibility' and 'transferability skills' were used which are difficult to measure.
For further information and advice about redundancy, age discrimination or unfair dismissal please contact Gareth Edwards on 0117 314 5220.
This publication is for guidance only. Reliance should not be placed upon it and nor should action be taken, without obtaining advice in respect of the specific circumstances applicable. We will be pleased to provide such advice or assistance.
