The two issues were:

a) Whether a policy adopted by the respondent whereby all leavers of the Northern Ireland Ambulance Service (NIAS) were required to go through a recruitment process as a condition of re-joining the service constituted unlawful indirect discrimination on grounds of age and; 

b) Whether the tribunal had jurisdiction to deal with the claim, given that the claimant lodged his claim outside the three month time-limit for bringing such a claim. 

The claimant was employed as a Paramedic Supervisor for almost 26 years when he retired. He indicated his interest in retirement but was told that he could return to work part-time, but technically he would not have retired and so could not take up his pension. He was also told that he would be required to go through the normal recruitment process to re-join.

The tribunal held that the policy of requiring all leavers to reapply through a recruitment process for jobs did not put any group at a particular disadvantage. The tribunal stated that the condition applied by the NIAS that those leaving the service should undergo a recruitment process to re-join must be assessed by considering not the number of leavers of the ambulance service, but the number of members who wished to re-join (Chaudhury v British Medical Association [2007] IRLR 800). In this regard, the claimant failed to provide the relevant evidence and thus the tribunal was unable to find that they had been put at a disadvantage. The claimant was also unable to cite a suitable comparator as the individual in question was not retiring but taking a career break but then submitted her resignation. The proposed comparator did not intend to return to work whereas the claimant did. Given that the respondent’s policy was held non-discriminatory, the time-limit issue did not require consideration but the tribunal held that the claimant’s claim was out of time as he did not act promptly in pursuing his claim. 


Practical lessons

Due to the decision of Chaudhury, it is clear that the relevant pool of persons for comparison purposes is quite narrow and restricted to those who were affected by the provision. For claimants this is obviously much different to the employee population generally and instead should be defined by reference to the nature of the rule, condition or requirement in issue. The wider pool would unnecessarily bring into the comparative exercise people who have no interest in the particular condition or requirement.