Ms Samantha Jones v Worcestershire County Council — 2020

Ms Samantha Jones was employed by Worcestershire County Council as a School Crossing Patrol Supervisor and Road Safety administrator. Her employment ended on 4 August 2019 as part of a restructure of the Road Safety (Education Skills) Team, in which the Respondent said the need for school crossing patrol supervision had diminished. The Tribunal accepted that the requirement for school crossing patrol supervisors had reduced, that the Claimant spent about 70% of her time on supervision and about 30% on road safety administration, and that the Respondent had a good business case for moving to a single new role.

The Tribunal found that the Respondent gave adequate warning and meaningful consultation, used an appropriate pool consisting of the two existing supervisors, and applied selection criteria based on the job description for the new role. It accepted that the Claimant’s alternative proposals were considered and rejected for business reasons, including the need for year-round administrative and technical cover, and that suitable alternative employment was not shown to be available. Although the Respondent mislaid the document recording part of the Claimant’s interview scores, the Tribunal was able to deduce the scores from the remaining material and found that Ms Turner scored higher in the competitive selection process.

The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed because the Tribunal concluded that redundancy was the reason for dismissal and that the decision to dismiss fell within the range of reasonable responses under s.98(4) ERA 1996. The Tribunal also rejected the suggestion that the process was predetermined or that the Claimant was selected because she worked part-time. In cross-examination, the Claimant accepted that her selection for redundancy was based on the assessment of competencies rather than her part-time status.

On the indirect sex discrimination claim, the Tribunal found there was a PCP requiring the new role to be full-time throughout the year, but it accepted that the Respondent was prepared to consider a job share arrangement subject to competencies. It held that the PCP was therefore dispensed with and that the Claimant did not actually suffer the alleged disadvantage. The claim under the Part-time Workers Regulations also failed because the Tribunal found that the selection decision was based entirely on competency assessment. In its postscript, the Tribunal urged the Respondent to improve its systems for retaining and legibly recording interview scores.