Want to talk to an expert employment law solicitor?

You'll receive a callback from a specialist within an hour

In the case of Sefton Borough Council v Wainwright UKEAT/0168/14/LA the Employment Appeal Tribunal (“EAT”) held that a finding that an employee had been discriminated against must be remitted as the Tribunal had not considered the “reason why” the potentially discriminatory action had occurred.

The factual background in Sefton Borough Council v Wainwright

Ms Wainwright was employed by Sefton Borough Council (“the Council”) as Head of Overview and Scrutiny. From November 2010 the Council was planning redundancies as it was faced with having to make budget cuts, and engaged in a management restructure in 2011 in order to make the necessary savings.

As part of the restructuring a new position of Democratic Service Manager (“DSM”) was created, a role which combined Ms Wainwright’s role with that of Head of Member Services (a post held by a Mr Pierce). Mr Pierce and Ms Wainwright were informed that their positions were at risk of redundancy in July 2012, by which time Ms Wainwright had commenced maternity leave.

A redundancy selection process was undertaken and both Ms Wainwright and Mr Pierce were interviewed in December 2012 for the position of DSM. The Council came to the conclusion that Mr Pierce was the better candidate for the role and he was offered the DSM position in December 2012.

In January 2013 Ms Wainwright was given three months’ notice of termination (for the reason of redundancy). She was also told that she had the right to be redeployed in the organisation but she did not apply for any positions. Her employment terminated in April 2013.

Ms Wainwright subsequently made claims to the Employment Tribunal under regulation 10 of the Maternity and Paternity Leave Regulations 1999 (“the Regulation 10 Claim”), section 18 of the Equality Act 2010 (“the Section 18 Claim”), and section 99 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, arguing that she had been discriminated against and automatically unfairly dismissed by the failure to award her the DSM position.

The decision of the Employment Tribunal

The Employment Tribunal held that the Regulation 10 Claim succeeded – under regulation 10 Ms Wainwright should have been offered the DSM position without an interview as she was on maternity leave and it was a suitable alternative vacancy. Failing to offer her the DSM was therefore a breach of regulation 10, regardless of the Council’s view of who the better candidate was. The Tribunal also held that, given that the Regulation 10 Claim succeeded, the automatic unfair dismissal claim and Section 18 Claims must succeed too.

The Council appealed the Employment Tribunal’s decision on the following bases:

  1. That the Tribunal had incorrectly equated the Section 18 Claim with the Regulation 10 Claim, and that the tests for these claims were substantially different (“Ground 1”)
  2. That the Tribunal had erred in finding that regulation 10 applied before interviews for the DSM role had taken place (“Ground 2”)

The decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (“EAT”) held that Ground 2 of the appeal should be dismissed, as the Tribunal was entitled to find that a redundancy situation had existed once that it had decided that the two positions would be deleted from the structure and replaced by one – if not provided with a suitable alternative vacancy both employees’ positions would be terminated by reason of redundancy, save that either employee could avoid being dismissed by being offered the DSM vacancy.

The EAT upheld the Ground 1 appeal, holding that the fact that regulation 10 had been breached did not inherently mean that Ms Wainwright had been directly discriminated against because of her period of maternity leave – the Tribunal should not have assumed that the Section 18 Claim was made out by virtue of the Regulation 10 Claim succeeding, and it should have asked itself what was the “reason why” Ms Wainwright was treated in the way she was.

Our lawyers’ comments

Chris Hadrill, a specialist employment solicitor, commented: “This case shows that, when making employees who are pregnant or on maternity leave redundant, employers should take particular care to ensure that such employees are given ‘first choice’ for any vacancies in their organisation which are both suitable and available – a failure to do so may lead to both claims for discrimination and automatic unfair dismissal being made against them.”

Please find the link to the judgment on Bailii here.

About

Redmans Employment Team deal with employment matters for both employers and employees, including drafting employment contracts and policies, advising employers and employees on compromise agreements, handling day-to-day HR issues, advising on restructures, and handling Employment Tribunal cases for both employers and employees Call 020 3397 3603 to speak to one of the members of our employment team or email us on enquiries@redmans.co.uk. Redmans have offices in Richmond, Chiswick, Hammersmith, Fulham, Kingston, Wimbledon, Ealing, Kings Cross and Marylebone (meetings strictly by appointment only).

Want to talk to an expert employment law solicitor?

You'll receive a callback from a specialist within an hour

Share →

One Response to Sefton Borough Council v Wainwright – Employment Tribunal must always look at “reason why” action had been taken

  1. […] against by not being given priority for suitable alternative vacancy at employer – read more (see this link for the case transcript on […]

Our awards

Request a callback

Your name

Your email

Your telephone number

Contact us

Please feel free to discuss your own position and concerns. Contact your nearest office on:

T: 020 3397 3603
E: enquiries@redmans.co.uk
W: www.redmans.co.uk

Testimonials

4.76 Average

124 Reviews

Brittany

I was very grateful for Redmans to treat my case with respect and discretion. At the time, I was very new to London and it was meaningful to have someone on my side and win the case for me. Without any doubt, I would definitely recommend Redmans Solicitors to anyone who is in need of it.

Posted 4 months ago

Jake L

Chris is very professional and calm. Very attentive and patient, been a positive experience having Chris represent me, and would recommend him.

Posted 5 months ago

Anonymous

Excellent service. It was a pleasure to work with Chris H, who is brilliant at what he does and very efficient. Their Senior Associate Rana T. is also very knowledgeable and resolves any queries speedily and efficiently. My issue could unfortunately not be resolved, but that was due to my employer and not the firm. Redmans however did all they could. I would definitely recommend them.

Posted 5 months ago

Anonymous

Very pleasant and quick to deal with. Mnay thanks.

Posted 5 months ago

Anonymous

Easy to get hold of. Quick.

Posted 5 months ago

Owen J

Very helpful, efficient service.

Posted 5 months ago

Anonymous

I am very lucky that I worked with Mr. Chris Hadrill and he managed my case very progressively with an analytical approach and trustfully. Of course with a very positive result. I strongly recommend Mr. Hadrill to any one seeking for a successful result from a highly qualified solicitor.

Posted 6 months ago

Kulbir S

Amazing, quick friendly service from Chris from the start and Caroline. They made me feel at ease during a difficult time, they understood and advised accordingly and I am really happy with the outcome of my case. Will always advise anyone who needs legal advice to contact Redmans, I’m so glad that I did and can confidently say I don’t think any other firm could have handled my case any better. Well done guys, wish you all the best and please keep doing what your doing, simply the best!

Posted 6 months ago

Mark A

Excellent service - rapid and “to the point” advice given to ensure meeting the target time frame

Posted 6 months ago

Anonymous

Chris Hadrill kept me sane during the negotiations with my employer. He was courteous professional and he cared about doing the best he could for me. I will use Redmans again if ever I need an employment solicitor. Excellent service.

Posted 6 months ago

Muhammad Z

Awesome services. Professionals at their best .

Posted 6 months ago

Anonymous

Thanks for the advice and for negotiating a good outcome. Good to have the support at a very stressful time

Posted 6 months ago

Chloe F

My solicitor at Redmans was very helpful and efficient. Really pleased with the smooth service.

Posted 6 months ago

Anonymous

Chris was absolutely excellent. Clear and concise, offering sound advice.

Posted 6 months ago

Tim O

Experienced and competent advisors

Posted 6 months ago

Rachel A

Quick and expert assistance. I would highly recommend Chris for any of your legal needs.

Posted 6 months ago

Joe S

I was very happy with the service provided by Chris and the team at Redmans Solicitors. I felt very comfortable discussing all matters with Chris and am very grateful for all the help and guidance I was given throughout the whole process. I would definitely recommend Redmans Solicitors to friends and family!

Posted 6 months ago

Anonymous

I had a very good experience working with Chris Hadrill during a difficult and emotional time. This held true from the moment I spoke to him on the phone, to the end of the process. Overall, he was attentive, professional and highly supportive. He provided sound advice and clarity. It was the reviews that led me to Redmans! I was very happy to know they were all true. I highly recommend working with Redmans Solicitors. Thank-you to the entire team!

Posted 6 months ago

Anonymous

Good service

Posted 6 months ago

Anonymous

Excellent professional service. Highly recommend.

Posted 6 months ago

Rob O

Very prompt response and I could not fault the service. My solicitor listened carefully to the details of my case and I felt very confident in the advice I was offered. All emails and work done on my behalf with my former employer was of the highest standard and Redmans helped take a lot of the stress out of the situation for me.

Posted 7 months ago