Employer’s incorrect approach to reorganisation led to unfair dismissal and age discrimination

Sullivan v David Lloyd Leisure Ltd ET/1202364/2008

unfair dismissal | redundancy | some other substantial reason | age discrimination

Mr Sullivan, who was 48 years old, worked as the financial and property accountant at David Lloyd Leisure, his employment having transferred under TUPE from his previous employer when two companies merged. Several months after the merger, Mr Sullivan’s employer began a reorganisation of his role and that of a 50-year-old colleague, who was the financial reporting manager. This restructure involved a redistribution of the property aspects of Mr Sullivan’s work to his colleague. The employer considered Mr Sullivan’s roles redundant in its current form, and re-interviewed him the new position. Around this time, the employer hired a 26-year-old finance manager, an entirely new role. Mr Sullivan was ultimately dismissed for redundancy, and he brought claims including age discrimination and unfair dismissal. The tribunal held this was not a redundancy dismissal, given that Mr Sullivan’s work was not expected to decrease, but was a dismissal for some other substantial reason. It held that the dismissal was unfair, because the employer had adopted the incorrect approach: Mr Sullivan was only one candidate for the job; he was already doing that job; and he was considered by his manager as being able to do that job. The employer should not have adopted an approach similar to appointing an entirely new employee. The tribunal also found that Mr Sullivan’s dismissal was direct age discrimination. A number of factors pointed towards Mr Sullivan’s age being a significant factor in his employer’s decision to dismiss him, including the employer’s retention and appointment of much younger employees in similar positions. 

View the full transcript of the case.