A former flight attendant who was made redundant by the British holiday airline TUI has successfully sued the carrier claiming that she was dismissed because of her age. The airline contested Karen Irving’s age discrimination claim, but a tribunal ruled in her favour, finding that age alone had decided her fate.
The 42-year-old member of cabin crew was dismissed last September after a short redundancy consultation was carried out by TUI as the airline looked to save costs in the face of mounting pandemic losses.
In the past, TUI ran its quieter winter schedule with surplus staff, a Glasgow employment tribunal heard, but in June 2021 the beleaguered airline decided it could no longer afford to keep extra staff on its books and drew up a list of 242 managers and cabin crew who would be culled.
Karen, who had worked at the airline for 20 years, was informed that she was one of 37 staffers at TUI’s Glasgow base at risk of redundancy. In September 2021, a manager informed Karen she would be made redundant.
At her redundancy meeting, Karen told her manager that she believed she was a victim of age discrimination because the airline had favoured crew members who had worked at the company for at least 25 years.
Due to Karen’s age, however, it was physically impossible for her to have worked at the airline for that long and there was no way for her to change the outcome of the redundancy decision.
“During the course of the meeting, she stated that she felt discriminated against on the grounds of age given that the reliance on length of service meant that she could never be safe from redundancy and that all those who were safe were over the age of 45,” the tribunal was told in comments reported by Glasgow Live.
Her manager claimed length of service was only one factor taken into consideration and that performance, attendance and sanctions had all played a part in the final decision. The court dismissed that claim and ruled age alone had decided Karen’s fate.
The tribunal report explained: “Mrs Irving gave evidence to the tribunal, which was not challenged and which was accepted, that none of the employees in the pool at Glasgow had been scored down for live sanctions and none had met the attendance triggers meaning that length of service was the sole criterion which had any bearing on the selection.”
Representing herself in court, Karen was awarded a payout of £6,500 for indirect age discrimination.
Karen told the tribunal that she no longer wanted to work in the airline industry following her experience with TUI.
The decision is in error. Rolls Royce PLC v Unite the Union addressed the same issue. The Court of Appeal ruled that length of service is related to the legitimate aim of maintaining a stable workforce during a redundancy exercise and rewarding loyalty, The flight attendant “felt” discriminated against. She can take her feelings and small payout and find a job where loyalty is unrewarded. In time, her feelings may be quite different.