The claimant commenced employment with the respondent in May 1998 as a receptionist.  The respondent provided out-of-hours urgent medical care and triage service in the northwest of Northern Ireland.

One of the four receptionists on the ‘on-call rota’ went off on sick leave due to stress in April 2019.  This led a relatively new General Manger to investigate the situation.  That investigation found that, inter alia, there was ill-feeling among some staff that rotas were being allocated among friends, there were those being allocated to shifts that they in fact didn’t work and the General Manager did find difficulty in contacting some staff when they were supposed to be on-call.  As a result of the investigation there were proposed changes to the working practices around shifts.  An additional post was created to allow for consistency and transparency.  This also involved the removal of the on-call rota to which the claimant’s colleagues raised the issue of whether it was a redundancy situation. They were informed that it was not as it was not a contractual arrangement but a goodwill gesture was made giving each of the colleagues £566 relating to recompensing for the rota work.

The claimant raised issues in relation to the removal of the on-call rota upon her pension payments and entitlements. The claimant was informed that she could voluntarily increase her pension contributions.  It must also be added that there was no evidence shown from the claimant as to how she would be disadvantaged. The claimant brought a claim for direct and indirect age discrimination citing that she was financially disadvantaged by virtue of being the youngest individual when the on-call rota was set up in 2005 (with the others retiring in the interim period).  She also stated there was an unlawful deduction from wages as it was a breach of her contract of employment by removing the on-call system.

The Tribunal dismissed the claimant’s claim.  It was found that there was no evidence shown to establish that the on-call role was any more than an allowance. There was never any additional contract for it or an amendment to the contract she had.  As a result, there could be no breach of contract as alleged.  In terms of age discrimination, the Tribunal again found that there were no facts established by the claimant citing discriminatory treatment.  The reason for changing the on-call system was motivated by business needs.  This was shown by the fact the investigation was premised upon staff welfare issues.  Accordingly, the burden did not shift to the respondents and the case was dismissed.

Practical Lessons:

This case demonstrates the importance in demonstrating factual evidence relating to claims.  The first was regarding a contract yet the claimant never demonstrated any additional contract or anything which led to an amendment of the contract thus giving that legal entitlement to the on-call work.  Furthermore, the age discrimination point was based upon some argument that she would suffer a financial detriment yet that was not factually shown.  Additionally, the respondent was able to show that the whole basis was motivated by business needs and bearing in mind that age discrimination (even direct) can be defended where there is objective reasoning and the step is proportionate allowed the respondent to avoid liability here.