Ms S. Sleeman, counsel For the v Respondent — 2018

The claimant, Ms Fereshtah Saffari, had worked for the predecessor college since 2000 and became Head of Department in 2014. After the 2018 merger and restructure, the respondent removed the head of department roles and created five more senior head of faculty roles. The tribunal found that there was a genuine redundancy situation throughout, that the claimant had been given reasonable warning and consultation, and that the interview process for the new head of faculty posts was a lawful exercise in seeking alternative employment rather than a redundancy selection exercise.

Applying s.98(4) ERA 1996 and the authorities it cited, including Williams v Compair Maxam Ltd, Polkey, Langston and Morgan v Welsh Rugby Union, the tribunal held that it was reasonable for the respondent to test candidates for the more strategic head of faculty role by interview. It found that the claimant did not perform well at interview, that the panel genuinely believed she had not shown the necessary skills and abilities, and that there were reasonable grounds for that view. The tribunal also found that the claimant told the respondent she was not interested in other roles at the interview stage, and that the later bulletin and targeted email about alternative vacancies were reasonable further steps.

On discrimination, the tribunal applied the burden-of-proof approach in Igen v Wong and Shamoon v Chief Constable of the RUC. For age, it found that a comment about 'new blood' could support an inference of age discrimination, given the claimant's age of 62 and the ages of the comparators, but the respondent discharged the burden by proving that the claimant was not appointed, offered an alternative vacancy, or dismissed because of poor interview performance. For race, it found that Mr Davies' questions about whether the claimant was Persian or Iranian and whether she went to Iran could also support an inference of race discrimination, but again accepted the respondent's explanation that the treatment was unrelated to race. All claims were dismissed and no monetary award was made.