Cases2308446/2020

Claimant v Laing O'Rourke Services Limited

26 January 2024Before Employment Judge SudraLondon South

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Unfair Dismissalfailed

Tribunal found there was a genuine redundancy situation following COVID-19 pandemic. Respondent carried out statutory obligations of collective and individual consultation. Selection for redundancy and construction of redundancy pools was fair and reasonable. Dismissal on grounds of redundancy was within the range of reasonable responses available to an employer.

Direct Discrimination(race)failed

Claimant failed to establish prima facie case. Tribunal found no evidence that race was a factor in any of the alleged detriments (appointment of white colleagues to roles, furlough, redundancy selection, dismissal). The roles given to comparators were more senior and unadvertised; furlough affected 1,400 diverse staff; redundancy pools were constructed on reasonable, non-discriminatory criteria. Possession of protected characteristic alone insufficient without 'something more' to shift burden of proof.

Facts

Claimant, a black senior infrastructure specialist employed from 2012, was made redundant in October 2020 following COVID-19 pandemic. He alleged white colleagues were appointed to unadvertised roles he was interested in, that he was unfairly selected for furlough and redundancy, and that the respondent failed to offer him a suitable alternative role (Senior Information Security Analyst grade 5). Claimant represented himself throughout. Respondent conducted collective and individual consultation. Claimant scored lowest in his redundancy pool of two.

Decision

Tribunal dismissed all claims. Unfair dismissal claim failed because there was a genuine redundancy situation, proper consultation was conducted, and dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses. Direct race discrimination claims failed because claimant did not establish a prima facie case — roles given to white comparators were more senior and unadvertised, furlough affected diverse staff, and redundancy process was conducted on reasonable non-discriminatory criteria. Some discrimination allegations were out of time and tribunal refused to extend.

Practical note

A claimant alleging race discrimination must establish more than just possession of a protected characteristic and less favourable treatment; there must be evidence from which the tribunal could infer race was a material factor, and self-represented claimants who overestimate their qualifications relative to comparators will struggle to meet this threshold.

Legal authorities cited

Martin v Devonshires Solicitors [2011] ICR 352Efobi v Royal Mail Group Ltd [2021] UKSC 33Madarassy v Nomura International Plc [2007] ICR 867Igen v Wong [2005] ICR 931Fraser v University Leicester UK EAT/1055/13Qureshi v London Borough of Newham [1991] IRLR 264British United Shoe Machinery Co Ltd v Clarke [1977] IRLR 297Laing v Manchester City Council [2006] IRLR 748Hewage v GHB [2012] ICR 1054

Statutes

ERA 1996 s.98EqA 2010 s.136EqA 2010 s.23ERA 1996 s.94EqA 2010 s.13ERA 1996 s.98(4)

Case details

Case number
2308446/2020
Decision date
26 January 2024
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
5
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
construction
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Employment details

Role
Senior Infrastructure Specialist - Systems Management
Service
9 years

Claimant representation

Represented
No