(1) Mrs K Buddie (2) Mrs J Williams (3) Mr A Doyle v Unison (a trade union) — 2020

The tribunal heard claims by Mrs K Buddie, Mrs J Williams and Mr A Doyle against UNISON arising from a May-June 2018 recruitment exercise for a part-time branch role and from their suspension from union membership and office on 3 July 2018. The Third Claimant's s.48 ERA 1996 detriment complaint and the joint victimisation complaint under s.27 Equality Act 2010 were withdrawn during the hearing and recorded as dismissed. The tribunal applied the shifting burden of proof and the "reason why" approach from Shamoon, and treated the central question as whether the treatment complained of was because of age or sex rather than because the claimants believed the process was unfair or directed at Mr X.

On the First Claimant's non-appointment complaint, the tribunal found that she did not score as highly as Mr X on the selection day. It accepted evidence that the same process was used for all candidates, including a presentation, timed test and interview, that a woman was required on the panel under union policy, and that the First Claimant was not told she could not use the internet while the test was being undertaken. The tribunal rejected the suggestion that the process was designed to block her appointment and dismissed both the age and sex discrimination claims.

On the Second Claimant's non-shortlisting complaints, the tribunal found that her application scored lower than the other candidates and that the panel applied the published criteria, with flexibility discussed during marking. It rejected the argument that a negative reference to mental health affected the age and sex claims, noting that this was not part of the issues before it. The tribunal also dismissed the age discrimination complaint about the suspension of all three Claimants, accepting that there were reasonable financial concerns about honorariums, tax treatment and branch audit issues, that the suspension decision was made centrally, and that Mr Maddocks was not a suitable comparator because he was not facing allegations of financial misconduct.