Mr W Hall v BT Group plc — 2024

The tribunal found that BT had a genuine redundancy situation arising from a large-scale reorganisation and closure of the Enterprise function at Sevenoaks. It accepted that the claimant's PSM role was redundant within section 139 ERA 1996, that the whole PSM team at Sevenoaks was placed at risk, and that the respondent was entitled to pursue its co-location model rather than retain the role as a homeworking post.

On unfair dismissal, the tribunal found the collective and individual consultation processes were meaningful overall and that BT took reasonable steps to assist with redeployment, including priority status for vacancies, a redundancy microsite, signposting roles, and local management support. It found the claimant applied for only two roles, was reluctant to apply unless flexibility was confirmed in advance, and did not fully engage with the opportunities presented. Although the tribunal found the appeal was not handled by a sufficiently independent manager, it concluded that this defect did not make the dismissal unfair when the process was viewed as a whole.

On discrimination, the tribunal rejected the direct associative disability claim because the claimant was selected and dismissed as part of the PSM redundancy process and not because of his association with his disabled daughter. It rejected the sex discrimination claim because the proposed comparators in the International team were not in materially similar circumstances and a hypothetical female PSM with the same caring responsibilities would also have been selected and dismissed if she failed to obtain another role. The tribunal held it had no jurisdiction over the indirect associative disability claim, concluding that this 'friends and family' claim did not fall within section 19 Equality Act 2010 or the scope of Chez.