Case 1403798/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Joanne Allan v Oakley Builders and Groundwork Contractors Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 1403798/2018
- Decision date
- 2 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Housego
- Venue
- Exeter
- Panel members
- Ms R Hewitt-Gray, Mr I Ley
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Joanne Allan
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Allan worked as an administrative assistant for Oakley Builders and Groundwork Contractors Ltd from 9 May 2016. The tribunal found that a redundancy situation arose in summer 2018, after cost-cutting discussions on 19 July and 30 July 2018, and that on 2 August 2018 staff were asked for volunteers for redundancy. No one volunteered, and the respondent proceeded to dismiss Ms Allan by letter dated 9 August 2018 with employment ending on 24 August 2018.
On the age discrimination claim, the tribunal rejected Ms Allan's case that her dismissal was because of age. It accepted that she relied on Ms Wise as a comparator, but found that the relevant comparison did not assist her: Ms Allan and Ms Wise did similar work in the same office, the differences in hours and pay were not material, and the selection method was last in first out by reference to start date. The tribunal held that the protected characteristic was not the reason for selection, and that the fact that the retained employees were younger did not show discriminatory causation.
On unfair dismissal, the tribunal held that the redundancy pool of administration staff was rational and that last in first out was an objective criterion genuinely used over several years. It found that consultation was limited but, given that the only real selection mechanism was length of service and the need was to remove one FTE from the office, further discussion of scoring would have served no purpose. The tribunal also noted that if there had been any procedural unfairness, dismissal would still have followed in the same timeframe, so any loss would have been eliminated by a 100% Polkey reduction.
The redundancy payment issue was not finally decided in this judgment. The tribunal recorded that the redundancy payment had been processed through payroll, so tax and employee national insurance had been deducted, and it accepted the respondent accountant's figures of £252.00 tax and £98.50 national insurance. It adjourned that issue and relisted it for a one-hour hearing after 42 days if the deductions could not first be recovered from HMRC with the respondent's assistance.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | The tribunal rejected the claim that Ms Allan's selection for redundancy was because of age. It found that the respondent used a genuine and objective last-in-first-out criterion within a rational pool of administration staff, that Ms Allan was the last in, and that the age difference between her and the retained employees did not establish a causative link to dismissal. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the dismissal fair in all the circumstances. It accepted that there was a genuine redundancy situation, that the pool and selection criterion were rational, and that any procedural defects made no difference because a fair process would still have led to Ms Allan's dismissal in the same timeframe; the tribunal stated that any unfairness would have attracted a 100% Polkey reduction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | This claim was not finally determined in this judgment. The tribunal said the issue would be relisted for a one-hour hearing after 42 days if unresolved, because tax and employee national insurance had been deducted from the redundancy payment and the respondent was to try to help recover those deductions from HMRC. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
13 references- S98(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- S98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Equality Act S 5
- Equality Act S13
- Equality Act S13(2)
- Equality Act S23(1)
- Igen v Wong [2005] ICR 931
- Madarassy v Nomura International plc [2007] EWCA Civ 33
- Laing v Manchester City Council [2006] I.C.R. 159
- Ayodele v Citylink Ltd & Anor [2017] EWCA Civ 1913
- Bahl v The Law Society [2004] IRLR 799
- Sainsburys Supermarkets Ltd. v Hitt [2002] EWCA Civ 1588
- Polkey v A E Dayton Services Ltd [1988] ICR 142 HL
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.