Claimant v Tunisair (also known as Societe Tunisienne de l'Air) — 2021

The claimant worked for the respondent airline from 21 August 1991 until he resigned on 23 August 2019, aged 72. The tribunal found that dashboard reporting had become part of the Station Manager role from around 2010 and that asking him to do that work did not amount to a different job, a demotion, or a contractual breach. It accepted the respondent had genuine concerns about performance and workload management, and found the claimant was offered training and assistance with the dashboard system.

On the dismissal claim, the tribunal applied Western Excavating v Sharp and s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996. It found the claimant resigned after objecting to being required to do dashboard work and to the respondent's handling of the situation, but there had been no fundamental or repudiatory breach of contract. The tribunal also found that the claimant had not been dismissed, so the unfair dismissal claim under s.98 ERA 1996 failed.

On age discrimination, the tribunal found that the respondent did not treat the claimant less favourably because of age and that there was no link between the performance concerns and his age. It said any age-related leniency was in the claimant's favour rather than against him. It also found that the claimant's age discrimination complaints were in time because the conduct relied on extended over a period ending with his resignation.

On harassment, the tribunal considered the June 2019 meeting, retirement-related discussions, criticism of performance, and other complaints about how the claimant was managed. It found that these matters did not amount to unwanted conduct related to age with the purpose or effect required by s.26 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal accepted the criticisms were genuinely held performance concerns, even if some were communicated poorly or in public, and concluded that the harassment claim failed.