Mofunanya v Richmond Fellowship, EAT, 15 December 2003

Words are not enough: Mofunanya was one of two night staff at a residential care home. His female colleague’s work involved the intimate, personal care of a female patient. When night staff had to be cut, Mofunanya was a potential candidate since, as a male worker, he couldn’t undertake the intimate care of the female patient.

He had meetings with the personnel manager, discussions about alternative employment and an appeal hearing. But on confirmation of his redundancy, he brought complaints of discrimination and unfair dismissal, which failed at tribunal. But his allegation that his selection for redundancy and lack of consultation had not been given due consideration by the tribunal was upheld.

The EAT concluded that the home had ‘informed’ staff that it was cutting night workers but, despite numerous conversations, this fell well short of proper consultation.

Comments are closed.