Mr C Micallef, Mr R Andrews, Mr R Bayliss, Mr S Bellamy, Mr M Edwards, Mr J Hayel, Mr M Hayel, Mr D Marshall, Mr C Macauley, Mr L Macauley, Mr J Riemer, Mr J Stewart. v Welsh National Opera — 2023

The tribunal found that Welsh National Opera undertook a genuine restructuring of the stage technical team, reducing the number of permanent roles from 12 to 8 and changing the roles towards annualised hours, more flexible working, and greater management responsibility. It accepted that financial pressures, uncertainty after the pandemic, and a desire to change the touring model were the reasons for the exercise, and it held that the principal reason for the dismissals was redundancy.

The age discrimination claims failed. The tribunal did not find proved the alleged age-related comments relied on by the claimants, and it held that age was not a material influence on the decision to place the team at risk of redundancy, invite voluntary redundancy, or dismiss those who left. It found that the same process would have been followed regardless of the age profile of the crew.

On whistleblowing, the tribunal held that Mr C Micallef and Mr J Hayel made protected disclosures in December 2020 about alleged wastage of public money on the Carmen set and concerns about CTS and its relationship with WNO. It rejected most of the earlier alleged disclosures, but accepted those December 2020 disclosures were made in the public interest and with a reasonably held belief. Even so, it found that those disclosures did not materially influence the redundancy process, the offer and acceptance of voluntary redundancy, or the decision not to slot them directly into new roles, so the protected disclosure dismissal and detriment complaints were dismissed.

Mr J Hayel’s disability complaint was treated differently. The tribunal found that he had a disability by reason of a literacy impairment, that the respondent knew or ought to have known about it, and that the new Head of Staging role would have required written reports and other tasks he could not perform without support. However, it dismissed the reasonable adjustments claim because it did not find the respondent had failed to take the pleaded steps. His separate unfair dismissal claim succeeded because the tribunal considered it unreasonable not to have had an express conversation with him about possible assessment and support before the redundancy decision; it directed that remedy would be listed if the parties could not agree it, but also found he would likely have taken voluntary redundancy in any event.