The need for a degree to select redundancies was ageist, according to the tribunal

Giving someone a lower score in a redundancy process because they don’t have a degree , can be indirect age discrimination. An employment tribunal ruled this after a former Lidl worker was awarded PS51,000 as unfair dismissal.

The employment tribunal of Sheffield found that Mr Norman was indirectly discriminated because the criteria for redundancy included whether he held a construction degree or qualification.

Norman, who was 63 at the time of his dismissal, had been working for Lidl for 22 years, constructing and renovating supermarkets.

In January 2023, he was informed that he would be at risk of being redundant. He was then placed in a group of three construction consultants to fill a role which would continue after the restructure. The two other candidates for the position were in their 30s.

Norman asked Mr Schofield if they were going to be interviewed for the vacant position. He was told that they wouldn’t; it would just be a scoring process and the final decision.

Norman did not succeed and his colleague Mr Farcas was given the role.

Norman learned later that he had been “marked down” for the “knowledge criteria”, because he did not have a relevant degree.

The claimant presented statistical evidence before the tribunal, which showed that the UK population was divided by age and had a lower percentage of people with degrees in their 60s than in their 30s.

Norman felt “discredited”, because he didn’t have a university degree, and “punished,” for growing up in a council estate where he had no opportunity to go to university.

The tribunal found Schofield’s testimony about “the importance of a qualification, or its absence” to be inconsistent. He claimed that the claimant’s lack of degree had no bearing on his score and, had he held any qualifications, they would not have affected it.

The judgement stated: “On the basis of the evidence, there is no way to avoid the conclusion that the [criterion] pleaded was applied.” The tribunal found that the additional knowledge Mr Farcas had in his position was what differentiated his score from the claimant.

“Had they not included the indirect discriminatory factor, the scores would have been the same for both Mr Farcas and the claimant under the knowledge criterion (without discrimination).

The panel found that Norman was subjected to indirect age discrimination because it accepted the fact that people over 60 are less likely to hold a university degree.

It’s not a scam

The judge concluded that redundancy was real and “not a scam” but that the consultation was not reasonable, and as such rendered the dismissal unjust.

In a remedy judgement that was published last week by the tribunal, it ordered Lidl pay Norman 46,300 PS in compensation for unfair dismissal and another 4,650 PS for emotional injury due to indirect age discrimination.

The compensation was reduced by half to reflect Polkey, since there was a 50% probability that the Norman was dismissed fairly in any case.

Norman’s claim for age discrimination was rejected. In the judgment, it was stated that while the score assessment of the claimant could be contested, the tribunal acknowledged that Lidl made its decision based purely on his abilities, unrelated to age.

It said: “There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that the respondents had any opinion about his longevity or his performance in his current or future role, or his age.”

Another claim of age-related harassing, including the claim that his colleague referred to him by “grandad”, was also rejected.

Personnel Today has HR jobs in the construction industry

Browse HR jobs in Construction and Property