Employers need to be careful to avoid discrimination in redundancy situations

A recent UK employment tribunal decision highlights the importance of valuing both education and skills and of communicating clearly with employees when making employment decisions.

In the case of Norman v Lidl Great Britain Ltd, a man in his sixties, who was a senior construction consultant for Lidl, was responsible for overseeing the construction, alteration and refurbishment of regional stores. 

Following a reduction in new store openings and redevelopments, Wayne Norman was placed into a pool of three senior construction consultants as part of a redundancy process because only one role was available under Lidl’s new structure.

The company used a scoring exercise to determine which employees would be selected for redundancy, based on experience, knowledge, skills, disciplinary record work delivery and managing workload. The knowledge criteria were partially scored on whether the employee had a construction degree, which Mr Norman didn’t. He scored only one point less than his colleague in his 30s, who had a college degree and secured the position.

Mr Norman did not apply for any alternative employment as he believed there was a requirement to have a degree to be eligible for any of the available vacancies. He raised an employment tribunal claim against Lidl for indirect age discrimination, alongside several other claims.

The indirect age discrimination part of his claim was successful, based on the tribunal’s acceptance of the premise that workers over the age of 60 are less likely to have a degree than those in their thirties.

Lidl was able to show that although qualifications were part of the matrix, those scoring were not influenced by the degree status of the employees. Even if the matrix had excluded degree considerations the scores would have been the same and Mr Norman’s compensation was reduced in recognition of this.

It was unfortunate for Lidl that the inclusion of holding a degree on the matrix didn’t reflect Lidl’s true opinion that the holding of a degree wasn’t of particular value to the role. 

Mr Norman had also brought an age claim based on his perception that suitable alternative employment at Lidl required a degree. However, the tribunal said it was clear from the job descriptions that a person might be able to demonstrate the necessary experience through their work and without the need for that experience to have been gained through the award of a relevant degree. 

This case involved a construction role, but lessons can be learned for other sectors, like the energy sector. Retirement in the energy sector is also a big issue for workforce planning. In the UK, one fifth of energy workers are expected to have exited the sector by 2030. While many employers will want to encourage a pipeline of workers to replace potential retirees, retirement exits do represent a loss of valuable talent.

This case also highlights the importance of employers making clear in all employment processes what value a degree really holds and considering whether a degree is necessary for a particular role. Of course, some roles may always require a degree or equivalent qualification pathway, such as senior engineering roles.