Claimant v Donaldson v Rolfe Contracting Ltd — 2021

The tribunal found that the claimant, Miss V Donaldson, was employed as a contract/project administrator from 19 May 2008 and that her dismissal on 6 August 2018 was by reason of redundancy. It accepted that the respondent's business had evolved towards larger and more complex projects, that the existing office-based administration model was no longer meeting the respondent's needs, and that the administration function was to be absorbed by project managers on site.

On the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal found that there were no performance issues with the claimant personally and that the difficulties identified by the respondent related to its system rather than to her. It found that the respondent genuinely believed a redundancy situation existed, had warned and consulted with the claimant at meetings on 31 July 2018 and 6 August 2018, and that there were no alternative roles available. The tribunal held that the dismissal fell within the band of reasonable responses and was therefore fair under section 98 ERA 1996.

On the sex discrimination claim, the tribunal considered several alleged incidents but found that the claimant had not proved that she was subjected to unfavourable treatment because of sex. It found that the emails of 20 February 2018 were mundane, that it had not been shown that Mr Rolfe made the alleged abusive phone call or said that he would prefer a male doing the claimant's job, and that Mr Gray was not an appropriate comparator because he was site-based, had a technical background, and was expected to visit sites whereas the claimant was office-based and had indicated she did not wish to travel to client sites.

The tribunal held that the desk move in July 2018 was prompted by the strained working relationship between the claimant and Ms Ryan and was intended to improve the working environment. It also found that the non-invitation to certain site meetings and the assistance from Mr Gray were explained by the claimant's refusal to travel to sites and by operational needs, not by sex. The tribunal therefore dismissed both claims unanimously.