Cranswick Convenience Foods Ltd

Case Summary

The claimant, an Engineering Administrator, was dismissed on grounds of redundancy in July 2024 after 7 years of employment. The tribunal found the unfair dismissal claim not well founded, but upheld her equal pay claim against her male comparator Tony Burke, finding she was employed on like work and the respondent failed to establish a material factor defence. The claimant was awarded £21,638.27 in arrears of pay with interest.

The unfair dismissal claim failed because the employer established a genuine redundancy situation (diminished need for the employee's type of work) and followed fair redundancy procedures including consultation and consideration of alternatives. The equal pay claim succeeded because the claimant performed like work to her male comparator Tony Burke and the respondent could not justify the pay difference through a material factor defence unrelated to sex.

• •Whether dismissal was by reason of redundancy and if so, whether fair
• •Whether the claimant was employed on like work with Tony Burke
• •Whether the difference in pay was attributable to material factors other than sex

CASE NO: 6018916/2024 1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Alison Cooper Respondent: Cranswick Convenience Foods Limited Heard: in Sheffield On: 19, 20, 21 and 22 January 2026 Before: Employment Judge Ayre Representation Claimant: In person, supported by her sister Respondent: Kirstie Smith, solicitor Upon a reconsideration of the judgment delivered orally to the parties on 22 January 2026, on the Tribunal’s own initiative under rule 71 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024, and without a hearing: JUDGMENT 1. The claim of unfair dismissal is not well founded. It fails and is dismissed. 2. The claim for equal pay is well founded and succeeds. The terms relating to pay in the claimant’s contract of employment are modified by virtue of the sex equality clause from 18 November 2018 to 31 July 2024 so as not to be less favourable than the terms relating to pay in the contract of Tony Burke because: a. The claimant’s work was like Tony Burke’s work under section 65(1) of the Equality Act 2010; and b. The respondent has not established that the difference in pay was because of a material factor other than the difference in sex. CASE NO: 6018916/2024 2 3. The respondent is ordered to pay to the claimant the sum of £21,638.27. REASONS Background 1. The claimant issued this claim on 17 November 2024 following a period of ACAS early conciliation that started on…