In the Guernsey case of Fox v Blanchelande College (2012), Fox succeeded in his claim for unfair dismissal and sex discrimination after his employment as a maths teacher was terminated by Blanchelande College (the "College") by reason of redundancy, in preparation for the closure of its sixth form teaching offering.
In relation to Fox's unfair dismissal claim, the Guernsey Employment Tribunal (the "Tribunal") noted shortcomings in several aspects of the College's redundancy procedure. The "pool" for selection for redundancy was fundamentally flawed, as it did not include at least two other members of staff qualified to teach maths. On the duty to consult and warn employees, failures included inter alia that no written records were made of any meetings held with employees forming part of the pool, and that important issues material to the College's decision-making (e.g. the relevance of an ability to teach A-level classes) had not been adequately communicated. With regard to the selection criteria to be applied to the pool, Mr Fox was not given any information, either verbally or in writing, as to the rationale for his selection. The Tribunal noted that "no attempt was made to score any of the criteria that [were] being used for comparison of staff". It described the College's approach as "cherry picking" and "lacking clarity and objectivity". The Tribunal was critical of the College's approach generally and expressed concern in relation to "the veracity of some of the evidence produced…in regard to [the] dismissal". It held that Fox had been unfairly dismissed and ordered the College to pay £16,315.74 by way of compensation.
The sex discrimination claim related to the College's actions in attempting to make structural changes to the mathematics department. In addition to investigating whether the number of lessons taught by certain existing staff could be changed to save costs, the College sought to fill a permanent maths teacher post from the start of the following academic year. It notified a female member of staff ("W"), who was working part time at that stage on a fixed term contract and who was part of the "pool" for selection, that a more permanent role would be available from the following September. Upon offering the position to W, the College disclosed that it wished to retain "a strong female role model" in the mathematics department and that it may not offer the role to Fox for these reasons. It was clear to the Tribunal that the College had made a discriminatory statement. On the basis that the College presented no evidence to the Tribunal that a "genuine occupational qualification" existed (thereby potentially justifying the College's preference for a female member of staff) the Tribunal held that it had directly discriminated against Fox by reason of his gender. Accordingly, the Tribunal order the College to pay an additional £8,157.87 to Fox by way of compensation.