Recent UK case highlights the importance of recognising both skills and education

In the case (36-page / 684KB PDF) Wayne Norman, a man in his sixties working as a senior construction consultant in a regional property office for Lidl, was responsible for overseeing the construction, alteration and refurbishment of regional stores. 

Following a reduction in new store openings and redevelopments, 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 and a few other criteria around work delivery and managing workload. The knowledge criteria were partially scored on whether the employee had a construction degree, which Norman didn’t. He scored only one point less than his colleague in their 30s, who had a college degree and secured the position.

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 offered no defence to justify the actions. However, the company was able to show that although qualifications were part of the matrix, those marking the matrix 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 Norman’s compensation was reduced in recognition of this.

Gillian Harrington, an expert in employment law at Pinsent Masons, said: “This case involved a construction role, but lessons can be learned for other sectors, like the energy sector, too.”

“It was unfortunate for the employer that the inclusion of holding a degree on the matrix didn’t reflect the employer’s true opinion that the holding of a degree wasn’t of particular value to the role. The claimant in this case had also brought an age claim based on his perception that suitable alternative employment at Lidl required a degree,” she said.

“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. Of course, some roles may always require a degree or equivalent qualification pathway such as senior engineering roles.”

Although Lidl lost the case because of the way the matrix misrepresented the value of a degree, it was clear that whilst the experience and qualifications of the intergenerational workers differed, they were both highly valued employees.

Harrington said: “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,” she said.

“The claimant in this case and the younger colleague who was retained were of different generations, qualifications and career pathways. The claimant had also engaged in limited training of the retained colleague when he joined the business. The redundancy scoring difference was marginal, showing that the employer really did value both colleagues even if a difficult decision had to be made.”

This case highlights the importance of employers making clear in all employment processes – whether recruitment or redundancy – what value a degree really holds and considering whether a degree is necessary for a particular role, she said.