Lidl employee who faced age discrimination during redundancy given compensation
Wayne Norman was dismissed after being told he had been ‘marked down’ for not having a degree or construction qualification during redundancy process.
A Lidl employee who felt “punished” by redundancy criteria requiring him to have a degree or qualification and was unfairly dismissed has been awarded £50,926 by a tribunal.
Wayne Norman worked as a senior construction consultant for the supermarket chain in Doncaster where he was responsible for overseeing the building and refurbishment of regional stores before being made redundant in March 2023.
At the point of his dismissal, he was 63 years old, had been employed by Lidl for just under 23 years and had undertaken around 77 construction projects, the tribunal in Sheffield heard.
Mr Norman was first told of proposed redundancies during a meeting on January 30 2023 after which he discovered he was among three construction consultants up for redundancy with only one role available as part of the restructure.
The other two consultants were both in their 30s at the time.
After learning one of them had been successful in securing the job, Mr Norman met with his line manager Liam Schofield who informed him he had been “marked down for not having ‘relevant construction qualifications’ in that you do not have a construction degree”, the tribunal heard.
Mr Norman’s argument that those in their 60s were “less likely” to have a degree than those in their 30s was accepted by the tribunal that ruled the inclusion of having a degree or construction qualification as part of the redundancy selection criteria amounted to indirect age discrimination.
In a written ruling, employment judge Neil Maidment said Mr Norman had felt “discredited” because he did not have a degree and “punished” for the fact he had grown up on a Welsh council estate and had not had the opportunity to attend university.
Of Mr Norman’s evidence, the judge wrote: “He said that he had always believed that if you work hard enough, long enough and successfully enough you will be rewarded and respected for the work you do.
“Being told that he was marked down because he didn’t have a degree made him feel inadequate and demeaned.
“He described growing up on a North Wales council estate in the 1960s and 1970s when there was no opportunity for someone like him to go to university.
“He felt punished for this and angry.
“His parents had done their best to provide everything for him and he had worked his way up the ladder.”
Mr Schofield’s evidence was not “wholly consistent” regarding the significance of a qualification or degree during the redundancy process, the tribunal ruled.
During his time at Lidl, Mr Norman had got on well with his colleagues with a feeling that they were “very much part of a family”, the tribunal heard.
Of the effects of the redundancy on Mr Norman, Judge Maidment said he had suffered some “clear psychological damage”, evidenced by medication taken by the claimant and counselling he had received.
“The impact on his family life had been extreme and at one point he had had suicidal ideations,” the judge added.
Had it not been for his dismissal, the claimant “envisaged himself happily working on with the respondent until around his 67th birthday”, Judge Maidment wrote.
The tribunal ruled that the “failure to conduct a reasonable process of consultation” was sufficient enough to render the dismissal unfair and, while the respondent had set up a “potentially fair” scoring and criteria method, the tribunal could not conclude that this was “fairly and reasonably” applied in Mr Norman’s case.
In a remedy judgment published on May 9, the tribunal ordered Lidl to pay Mr Norman £46,280.63 in compensation for unfair dismissal and a further £4,646.15 for injury of feelings because of indirect age discrimination.
The ruling noted that the amount awarded for unfair dismissal had been reduced by 50% to reflect the chance that the claimant would have been fairly dismissed in any event.
Mr Norman’s complaint of direct age discrimination failed as the tribunal accepted he had been selected for redundancy based on an assessment of his “abilities unrelated to age” and there was “no evidence” that his “likely longevity” in the role or age may affect his performance.
His further claim of age-related harassment, including an allegation that a colleague had referred to him as “grandad” in the office, also failed.
