Ms Debra Gilbert v Slough Borough Council — 2023

Ms Debra Gilbert worked for Slough Borough Council from 5 June 2002 until 5 May 2021, latterly as Arrears and Investigations Manager. In Phase II of the council's restructure, her role was deleted and she was told on 4 November 2020 that she was at risk of redundancy. The tribunal accepted that redundancy was the reason for dismissal, but found that the process was flawed: there was no proper individual 1:1 consultation under the redundancy procedure, the 7 December 2020 discussion with Mr West was not a proper consultation, and the claimant was not placed on the redeployment register until 1 March 2021.

The tribunal held that the dismissal was unfair under s.98(4) ERA 1996. It accepted that Ms Gilbert initially wanted to take early retirement and access her pension, but found that once that was not available she was interested in redeployment. The council's failure to deal with her appeal in accordance with its procedure, and its failure to consider her grievance, compounded the unfairness. The tribunal rejected the council's argument that the claimant should have ensured the procedure was followed, holding that the procedure itself required a 1:1 consultation. It also rejected a Polkey reduction, finding that had the proper process been followed there was a high likelihood that Ms Gilbert would have been found a role and her employment would have continued.

The age discrimination complaints were dismissed. On direct age discrimination, the tribunal found no evidence that age played any part in the timing or handling of the dismissal, and it did not accept that the comparison with KL supported an inference of discrimination. It also rejected the suggestion that the timing of the notice meeting showed age-based treatment. The indirect discrimination complaint failed because the claimant did not establish that the alleged PCP of not considering redundancy cases on their individual merits was applied by the respondent. Remedy was not determined in this judgment; the tribunal listed a remedy hearing and directed the parties to exchange schedules of loss and counter-schedules.