Mr A Robson, Counsel For the v Respondent — 2022

The claimant had worked for the respondent since 1997 and his role of Director of Policy Development was replaced during a 2018 restructuring process. He was given notice of redundancy in January 2019, accepted a new temporary International Manager contract to begin on 1 August 2019, and later returned to that role after a gap in employment. In June 2020 the respondent concluded that the International Manager role was no longer required and dismissed him by reason of redundancy.

The tribunal held that the ordinary unfair dismissal claim could not be brought because the claimant did not have two years' continuous service. It found that there was no contract of employment in place between 1 July 2020 and 31 July 2020, that the earlier role had ended, and that the new contract stated that previous service would not count for continuity. In any event, the tribunal found that redundancy was the genuine reason for dismissal and that the consultation, alternative role discussion, appeal process, and overall treatment were within the band of reasonable responses.

On the whistleblowing issues, the tribunal accepted that the claimant made a qualifying disclosure on 14 April 2020 when he raised concerns about bus drivers' safety during the pandemic and questioned whether buses should be running at all. It found, however, that the disclosure was not the reason or principal reason for his dismissal or for selecting him for redundancy. The tribunal accepted the respondent's evidence that the decision arose from a genuine reduction in the need for the claimant's role.

The age discrimination claims were also dismissed. The tribunal found that the complaints about the 2018 redundancy proposals, the January 2019 notice, and the offer of a new part-time fixed-term role were presented out of time, that no continuing act was shown, and that it would not be just and equitable to extend time. On the merits, the tribunal found no evidence that the claimant was treated less favourably because of age, no valid indirect discrimination PCP was proved, no particular disadvantage was established, and in any event the respondent's aims in restructuring and saving costs were legitimate and proportionate. No remedy was awarded because all claims failed.