Case 6018916/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Alison Cooper v Cranswick Convenience Foods Limited Heard: in Sheffield — 2026
- Case reference
- 6018916/2024
- Decision date
- 20 March 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ayre Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Alison Cooper
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Alison Cooper was dismissed for redundancy on 31 July 2024 after the respondent lost a significant Aldi contract and had to reduce engineering administration headcount at Valley Park. It accepted that the respondent carried out collective consultation from April 2024, used a pool that included the claimant, Jackie McDonald and Tony Burke, and adopted selection criteria that were agreed through consultation. The tribunal also found that the respondent invited the claimant to a scored interview for the combined remaining role, consulted with her individually after the interview, and took reasonable steps to identify suitable alternative employment. The unfair dismissal claim was therefore not well founded and was dismissed.
On equal pay, the tribunal accepted the claimant's evidence that her work was like Tony Burke's work within section 65 Equality Act 2010. It found that both were Engineering Administrators at the Valley Park site, that they covered for each other during holiday periods, and that the work they did was broadly the same. Although there were some differences in duties, the tribunal found limited evidence about their frequency or practical importance, and concluded that the claimant was employed on like work with Mr Burke throughout her employment.
The tribunal also found that the claimant was paid less than Mr Burke throughout her employment and that the respondent had not proved a material factor defence under section 69 Equality Act 2010. The respondent relied on length of service and additional duties and responsibilities, but no witness involved in setting the pay rates could explain why the claimant was paid less, and the tribunal found no evidence that those factors were the genuine cause of the difference. It therefore held that the sex equality clause applied and the equal pay claim succeeded.
Following reconsideration under rule 71, the tribunal corrected the arrears calculation under section 132 Equality Act 2010. It found compensation for breach of the equality clause of £16,808.48 and awarded £4,829.79 interest, producing a total award of £21,638.27.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The respondent proved redundancy as the reason for dismissal and the tribunal found the selection pool, selection criteria, consultation process and search for alternative employment were within the range of reasonable responses. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Equal pay | The tribunal found the claimant was doing like work with Tony Burke throughout her employment, was paid less throughout, and the respondent failed to establish a genuine material factor defence. The final award was recalculated on reconsideration, with arrears of £16,808.48 plus £4,829.79 interest. | Upheld | Sex | £21,638 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £21,638
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £16,808
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
17 references- s.98(1) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- s.139 ERA 1996
- Safeway Stores plc v Burrell
- Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd
- Thomas and Betts Manufacturing Co v Harding
- Kvaerner Oil and Gas Ltd v Parker
- s.65 Equality Act 2010
- s.69 Equality Act 2010
- Glasgow City Council v Marshall
- BMC Software Ltd v Shaikh
- Calmac Ferries Ltd v Wallace
- Eaton Ltd v Nuttall
- Capper Pass v Lawton
- Waddington v Leicester Council for Voluntary Services
- rule 71 Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- s.132 Equality Act 2010
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.