Mr M Crowley (1) Mr E Witney (2) Mr S Rolls (3) v Sterling Thermal Technology Ltd — 2023

This consolidated case concerned Sterling Thermal Technology's 2020 restructuring, the furlough of the claimants, and the later redundancy and disciplinary processes. The tribunal applied the s.98(4) ERA 1996 band of reasonable responses test, the Burchell criteria for conduct dismissals, redundancy principles from Murray v Foyle Meats and Williams v Compair Maxam, and the EqA s.13 and s.136 burden-of-proof framework. It also noted that Mr Witney's redundancy-payment claim had been withdrawn.

For Mr Crowley, the tribunal found that the Project Romeo redundancy selection had been manipulated. Mr Zeoli had little direct knowledge of Mr Crowley's work, the scoring criteria were not clearly defined at the outset, and the scores moved during consultation in a way that kept Mr Crowley in last place. The tribunal also found that Mr Zeoli treated the possibility of Mr Crowley retiring as important, and that age was a material factor in the dismissal. His unfair dismissal and age discrimination claims therefore succeeded, and the appeal did not cure the unfairness because it did not amount to a fresh scoring exercise.

At the remedy hearing for Mr Crowley, the tribunal found there was a one-third risk he would have been fairly dismissed in any event and that he would likely have retired at 72. It awarded £350 for loss of statutory rights under the unfair dismissal head and, for discrimination, £12,000 for injury to feelings, £44,808.29 for loss of earnings, £1,092 for grossing-up and £7,497.25 interest, giving him a total award of £65,747.54.

For Mr Witney, the tribunal found that the real reason for dismissal was conduct rather than redundancy. It held that senior managers had already decided to dismiss him after the July 2020 cyber attack, and that the Peninsula investigation and disciplinary process were used as window dressing. The tribunal criticised the handling of the technical allegations about passwords, backups, Darktrace, handover, licences and cyber essentials, and found that the respondent had not carried out a reasonable investigation or disclosed the documents Mr Witney requested. The age discrimination claim failed because age was not a material factor. The wrongful dismissal claim succeeded, but the notice payment was already included in the unfair dismissal compensation.

At remedy for Mr Witney, the tribunal awarded a basic award of £4,035, loss of statutory rights of £500, loss of earnings and pension of £36,714.22 and a 25% ACAS uplift of £9,303.55, for a total of £50,552.77. It found that he would likely have retired in July 2023 in any event.

For Mr Rolls, the tribunal found that the original redundancy thinking had him pooled with Mr Dunne, but that this was later changed to a pool of one. It accepted evidence that Mr Normington had said he wanted younger people in the department, and it found that age was a material factor in the redundancy selection. The age discrimination claim therefore succeeded. At remedy, the tribunal applied a 50% reduction for the chance of a non-discriminatory dismissal and awarded £70,560.26 for loss of earnings, £12,000 for injury to feelings and £4,989.93 interest, totalling £87,550.19.