Miss A Collick v British Telecommunication plc — 2022

Miss A Collick was selected for redundancy during a BT Technology reorganisation that reduced the national Radio and Rigging manager pool from six to five. The tribunal accepted that redundancy was the genuine reason for dismissal, but held that the respondent did not act reasonably within s.98(4) ERA 1996 and the Williams v Compair Maxim Ltd principles.

The tribunal found that the respondent failed to give proper consideration to voluntary redundancy despite its policy and the CWU collective agreement requiring voluntary means to be considered first. When Mr MA indicated that he did not want to attend the selection interview, he was later told to attend and was threatened with disciplinary action if he did not, which the tribunal regarded as highly irregular and as evidence of a predetermined decision to retain him. The claimant was also not given a fair opportunity to challenge her selection, was not provided with her scores or complete consultation notes when asked, and was denied an appeal on the stated ground that she had accepted enhanced terms.

The tribunal further found that the respondent failed properly to search for suitable alternative employment. It rejected the suggestion that there was no SatComs vacancy at Goonhilly and found that Mr MD was already on an agreed path to a permanent move into that role, with senior managers treating the transfer as effectively settled. The tribunal found the claimant was suitable for that role, that there had been no proper evaluation of her suitability, and that her notice period was curtailed so she would not remain a priority candidate. It also found there was no adequate follow-up to the possibility that Mr AE could take voluntary redundancy or that a job swap could be explored.

On direct sex discrimination, the tribunal held that Mr MD and Mr AE were not appropriate comparators because they were not in the same material position as the claimant. However, it found that the predetermined decision to retain Mr MA, together with the differential treatment around the SatComs role, the handling of the voluntary redundancy/job swap issues, the unanswered 20 November 2020 email raising sex discrimination, and the departures from the respondent's own procedures, amounted to facts from which discrimination could be inferred. The respondent did not prove that the treatment was in no sense whatsoever because of sex under s.136 Equality Act 2010. Remedy was not determined in this judgment and a remedy hearing was to be listed.