J Hendry Members: Mr AW Bruce Mrs D Massie Mrs D Stewart v Represented by: Ms M Gribbon Solicitor British Midland Regional Limited — 2017

The claimant was employed by British Midland Regional Limited and was on maternity leave when the respondent announced proposals to relocate Aberdeen functions to East Midlands and Bristol. The tribunal accepted that she had told HR she was having difficulty accessing the intranet and opening attachments, and that she had asked to be kept informed of updates by private email. It found that the respondent did not properly follow through on keeping her informed during the redundancy process.

On the section 18 Equality Act claim, the tribunal rejected any complaint based on the CEO's informal briefing in July 2015, but held that the claimant was treated unfavourably by not being given PACE information and by not being told about relevant vacancies. It accepted that the claimant should have been told about the Engineering Administrator vacancy and the temporary Crewing Officer posts, and awarded £7,000 for injury to feelings. The tribunal also declined to make a declaration under section 124.

Under the maternity-leave redundancy regulations, the tribunal found that the Planning and Scheduling Engineer role in Glasgow was not suitable alternative employment because it required experience the claimant did not have and was significantly higher paid than her then role. It also found that the temporary Crewing Officer posts were likely unsuitable because of their short-term nature and Glasgow location. Although the Engineering Administrator role was not treated as suitable alternative employment under regulation 10 because its salary was substantially lower, the tribunal held that the respondent should still have told the claimant about it and allowed her to decide whether to take it.

The unfair dismissal claim succeeded because the dismissal was not fair in all the circumstances. The tribunal accepted that redundancy was a potentially fair reason and that the overall collective consultation was broadly adequate, but it concluded that the dismissal was unfair for the narrower reason that the claimant was not kept advised of vacancies and was not offered the Engineering Administrator post before her redundancy took effect. It expressly stated that the remedy for dismissal would be dealt with later, so the operative monetary award in this judgment was limited to the discrimination award and fee reimbursement.

The tribunal noted that the claimant had used reasonable endeavours to find work after termination and that she had also pursued a grievance once she learned of the vacancy issue. It discussed future wage loss and the possibility of a later remedy hearing, but did not finally quantify the unfair dismissal compensation in this decision. The judgment therefore records a final award of £7,000 for injury to feelings and £1,200 in tribunal fee reimbursement, with the unfair dismissal remedy still outstanding.