The claimant claimed that she had been automatically unfairly dismissed for a reason relating to her maternity leave, contrary to Article 131 of the Employment Rights (NI) Order 1996. Secondly, the claimant claimed this decision was informed by unlawful discrimination on the grounds that the claimant had exercised her right to maternity leave, contrary to Article 5A of the Sex Discrimination (NI) Order 1976 (as amended). Thirdly, and in the alternative, the claimant also claimed that her dismissal was unfair in the “ordinary” sense under Article 126 of the Employment Rights (NI) Order 1996.

The claimant made various allegations of ‘historical incidents of sex discrimination’ which the respondent claimed were out of time. Surrounding allegations were made of a ‘macho’ culture in the workplace, that she was ‘bypassed’ regarding allocation of sales and an unsympathetic conduct towards her during periods of ‘morning sickness’.

The tribunal conclusively rejected these claims, refusing to draw any inferences from the evidence adduced. Concerning redundancies the claimant alleged that the initial redundancy pool consisting of five persons was improperly compiled, that the selection of individuals in charge of the redundancy scoring process was inappropriate, and that the selection criteria was ‘entirely subjective’.

In relation to ‘historical incidents of sex discrimination’ the court found that there was a real lack of compelling evidence, a common theme throughout the entirety of the claimant’s case.

The tribunal rejected the claimant’s unfair dismissal assertions, placing emphasis on the fact that the compilation of the initial pool of potential redundant workers was proper and rational. Added to this, there was no ‘clear and obvious disparity’ between the claimant and other comparable individuals in the scoring process.

In deciding on this, the tribunal afforded a degree of discretion to those involved in the scoring procedure. In dealing with the claim of ‘ordinary unfair dismissal’, the tribunal emphasised the decision of Williams v Compair Maxam [1982] IRLR 83 that criteria should not be subject to ‘over-minute scrutiny’, provided that they are not ‘inherently unfair’ and ‘appear reasonably applied’. In holding that the dismissal fell within the band of reasonable responses the tribunal stated:

“The tribunal accordingly does not find that the process was procedurally unfair. Further, there was a sound and substantive basis for the selection of the claimant for redundancy”

Practical lessons from this decision

The tribunal made numerous references to the respondent’s ‘BSS Manager’s Guidance’ which detailed the respondent’s redundancy selection procedure guidelines. The various references to the fact that the respondent acted ‘in accordance with’ this guidance reflected well on the respondent. This gave the tribunal a point of reference against which to compare the respondent’s conduct. For employers, this case highlights the importance of such an internal document and the fact that the tribunal relied so heavily on it stresses its importance.