Mrs Theresa Wilson v Countrywide Group plc — 2018

The respondent announced a restructuring on 5 March 2018 because of financial pressures, including a reduction in the learning and development team. The tribunal found there was collective and individual consultation, that the relevant L&D and systems trainer roles were pooled, and that employees were asked to submit preference forms and attend competency-based interviews. It accepted that the claimant was away when the announcement was made but found she was contacted directly and later received the consultation material.

On the age discrimination claim, the tribunal rejected the claimant's account that Kelly Wilson told her it was not worth applying for the remaining Systems Trainer role or that she should take redundancy because of her age. It found that the suggestion of a job share with Laura Marini-Goodwin was not pursued because Laura was not interested, that the claimant was not selected for the Systems Trainer role because her interview scores were lower than Laura's, and that the handling of the proposed job shares with Tanya Kerrison and/or Nina Benson was not age-related. The tribunal also found that the dismissal and appeal were not influenced by age.

On unfair dismissal, the tribunal held that the dismissal was for redundancy within s.139 ERA 1996 and that the process fell within the range of reasonable responses. It found that pooling, the competency-based interview process, the moderation of scores, the offers of alternative roles, and the extension of the claimant's notice period were all reasonable, and that the proposed job shares were reasonably rejected as impractical. It also found that any disadvantage caused by the interview location or panel arose from the claimant's decision not to rank her preferences.

The unlawful deduction from wages claim was withdrawn by the claimant and dismissed on that basis.