This case is another age discrimination case, this time on selection for redundancy. Although there were widespread redundancies in the company, the complainant was selected, after 21 years’ service as an electrician, despite being significantly more experienced that others selected. Although not formally part of the Tribunal’s Decision or award of compensation, it cannot have helped the respondent’s case that the complainant was dismissed at 40 minutes’ notice, even if this was company policy “to prevent sabotage”.

However, there were serious deficiencies in the company’s selection procedures. First, the complainant received a brief letter merely outlining his right of appeal. However the letter kept on file “consisted of 10 paragraphs explaining the company's procedure for making people redundant”. The Tribunal categorised this as “dishonesty”. Furthermore, there was “no documentation, whatsoever, of this decision making process by either his line manager or the Human Resources Section as to who was to be made redundant.” The respondent admitted that the complainant would have scored very highly on the selection criteria which ought to have been applied.

The Tribunal applied the English Court of Appeal decision in Nagarajan v London Regional Transport [1999] IRLR 572 (EWCA) to the effect that “the proscribed reason need not be the sole or even the principal reason for the conduct impugned; it is enough that it is a contributing cause in the sense of being a ‘significant influence’”. The Tribunal concluded that a prima facie case of direct age discrimination had been made out, that the presumption had not been rebutted by the respondent and awarded the complainant €22,000.

Once again, the employer who applies considered and well-documented policies and procedures is more likely to persuade the Tribunal that age discrimination has not occurred. 

http://www.equalitytribunal.ie/Database-of-Decisions/2012/Employment-Equality-Decisions/DEC-E2012-096-Full-Case-Report.html