Mr Nick Toms, of counsel For the v Respondent — 2023

The claimants were administrative staff at Ruislip who applied for Train Maintainer roles after a recruitment campaign that had removed the earlier experience requirement in order to attract more women. They were successful and were told on 26 February 2020 that they had passed the process, but on 13 March 2020 they were told the first available posts were at TransPlant, Ruislip, rather than the Fleet roles they had expected.

The tribunal found that Mr McFall, the TransPlant hiring manager, had not been consulted about the original campaign and did not know until 18 September 2020 that the candidates were the claimants or that they were women. In March 2020 he asked for the candidate packs because he wanted to be satisfied that the candidates had the relevant experience and skills for TransPlant; in August 2020 the claimants were told that the TransPlant roles were different, that an interview and assessment would be required, and that relevant knowledge and experience would need to be demonstrated in their CVs and interview.

Mr Rowley investigated the grievances and on 14 January 2021 concluded that there was no evidence the decision had been based on sex, recommended that the offer not be upheld, and proposed 3 to 6 month secondments together with a review of the job description, recruitment campaign and waiting-list candidates. On appeal, Mr Perry said the secondment would not be taken forward and that the claimants should be offered permanent positions when one became available. The tribunal noted that the claimants’ sense of grievance was entirely justifiable because they had been promised the TransPlant TM role and that promise had been reneged on, but no contractual issue was before it.

The tribunal dismissed all claims. Direct discrimination and harassment failed because Mr McFall would have taken the same stance if the candidates had been men in a comparable position, and the conduct was not related to sex. The indirect discrimination claim failed because the experience requirement for Train Maintainers was held to be a proportionate means of achieving legitimate aims, including competence, safety, avoiding damage to rolling stock and cost control. The victimisation claim failed because there was no evidence that the grievance outcome was motivated by the claimants’ complaints of sex discrimination or by their first tribunal claim, and no remedy was awarded.