Miss L Mannell v Altrad Employment Services Limited — 2026

The tribunal dismissed Miss L Mannell's claims against Altrad Employment Services Ltd for constructive unfair dismissal, discrimination arising from disability and indirect age discrimination. Four complaints of harassment related to sex were dismissed upon withdrawal. Mannell worked in the MEH Alliance payroll team at Hinkley Point C and became Payroll Team Leader in April 2023. She resigned on 9 September 2024, giving notice to end her employment on 4 October 2024.

The tribunal accepted that the payroll team faced staffing gaps and that Mannell worked substantial overtime. It rejected her assertion that she had been promised promotion to Payroll Manager. Management had hoped she would develop the experience needed for a later appointment, but payroll and industrial relations problems brought forward the need for a manager. Contemporary correspondence supported Ms Armour's view that Mannell was not ready for that role. Mannell, then aged 29, applied in March 2024 but was not shortlisted. The successful candidate, Mr Halliday, had extensive management experience involving payroll in construction.

Applying the Malik test, the tribunal found no fundamental breach of mutual trust and confidence. The scale and complexity of the payroll operation, the growing team and the need to deal with trade unions gave reasonable and proper cause for seeking an experienced manager. The decision not to interview Mannell was supported by the evidence about her performance and experience. Several earlier allegations became contextual material only; an alleged email was not proved. The satellite-office assignment and the grievance delays relied upon occurred after her resignation and could not have caused it. The tribunal also stated that working her required notice and pursuing a grievance did not count against her on affirmation.

For the disability claim, anxiety and depression were admitted disabilities. Mannell relied on her breakdown on 24 January 2024 as the consequence of disability underlying the alleged treatment. The tribunal found that recruitment requirements and the decision not to interview her arose from the need for management experience and the assessment of her readiness, rather than that breakdown or absence. Discussions about recruiting an experienced manager had already been taking place. The direction to work at the SDC office in Bridgwater during notice reflected her request to avoid returning to Hinkley Point C and the work required during that period. The tribunal did not find the alleged causal link to disability. It found no evidence supporting a lack-of-knowledge defence, although that issue did not affect the outcome.

The five-year Payroll Manager experience criterion was a provision, criterion or practice for the indirect age discrimination claim. The tribunal accepted that it disadvantaged younger candidates as a group, despite the absence of statistical evidence. It relied in part on Mr Wooding's acknowledgment that younger people would have had less time to gain the experience. It nevertheless held that Mannell had not established the corresponding personal disadvantage, relying on her acceptance that her shortfall reflected her career and training route rather than her age and that a different route could have enabled her to meet the requirement.