Ms Rachel Fletcher v University of Essex — 2021

Ms Rachel Fletcher had worked for the University of Essex since 2003. The tribunal found that, after a series of reorganisations in Student Life and Academic Services, the respondent lawfully combined three Grade 10 posts into a single Head of Student Development role. It held that this created a redundancy situation because the university had reduced the number of employees required to carry out the relevant work, even though some tasks continued elsewhere in the organisation.

The tribunal found the consultation process to be adequate. Ms Fletcher was consulted about the restructure, invited to make an expression of interest for the new role, and told what the essential criteria were. It found that she did not demonstrate the required employability and careers experience for the Head of Student Development post, so the respondent decided not to proceed with her application. The tribunal also found that from 1 April 2019 she had formed a settled intention to take early retirement in order to care for her seriously ill partner, and that the university then worked to accommodate an earlier leaving date without reducing her pension or notice entitlement.

On fairness, the tribunal held that the respondent had acted reasonably under s.98(4) ERA 1996. It accepted that the claimant was placed on the redeployment register, but found that she did not pursue redeployment opportunities and did not express an interest in the later Head of Student Services role while still employed, despite being aware it was being created. The tribunal therefore dismissed the unfair dismissal complaint.

On indirect sex discrimination, the claimant relied on alleged PCPs said to require, expect, or pressure senior managers in Student Life to work full-time, to make it difficult to consider part-time or job-share working, and to place the burden entirely on employees to justify part-time arrangements. The tribunal found that the respondent operated a written flexible working policy, that applications were discussed and sometimes granted or compromised, and that 21 flexible working applications in the relevant period were all agreed. It held that Ms Lucas was seeking a more organised process, not discouraging flexible working, and that the claimant was not rejected for the Head of Student Development role because she needed part-time working but because she did not meet the essential criteria. The indirect sex discrimination complaint was dismissed.