Ms M McAllister and Mr AH Perriam Mr Allan Stewart v Aberdein Considine & Co (a partnership) — 2024

The tribunal found that the respondent, a law firm with a financial services department, was experiencing significant losses in that department and decided in spring 2023 to reduce staff costs by making redundancies. The claimant was a mortgage and protection adviser at the Shawlands office, was placed in a pool of advisers in the southern branches, and was selected for redundancy after a scoring exercise using 11 criteria. He was dismissed on 31 May 2023, with an appeal heard by a different partner and rejected on 23 June 2023.

On the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal accepted that redundancy was a genuine potentially fair reason under s.98 ERA 1996 and that the requirement for employees to carry out financial services work had diminished. Applying the reasonable responses approach to the pool and selection process, and referring to authorities including Capita Hartshead Ltd v Byard, Williams v Compair Maxam, and Mugford v Midland Bank, the tribunal held that the separation of northern and southern branches, the exclusion of Perth from the pool, the 11 selection criteria, the consultation meetings, and the appeal process all fell within the band of reasonable responses. It also found that the claimant had adequate opportunity to make representations and that there was no evidence of alternative employment that should have been offered.

On the age discrimination claim, the tribunal accepted that the claimant was treated less favourably in the sense that he was dismissed while younger employees in the pool were not, but held that this was not enough to establish direct discrimination under the Equality Act 2010. Referring to the burden of proof provisions in s.136 and cases including Shamoon, Madarassy, Bahl, Igen v Wong and Hewage, it found no evidence that age influenced the dismissal decision or the redundancy process. The tribunal noted that length of service was one criterion, but that this favoured the claimant, and it treated the hearsay suggestion that older workers were being phased out as office gossip that carried no weight. Both claims were therefore dismissed.