A WOMAN who resigned from a Furness butcher shop was not the victim of age and disability discrimination, an employment tribunal has ruled.

Gill Owen claimed she had been discriminated against after she was placed on furlough during the pandemic by Irvings Butchers in Ulverston.

Mrs Owen, who worked as a sales assistant at the business for around two years, eventually resigned from the firm, the tribunal heard.

But a judge in Manchester ruled both claims were not founded.

The hearing was told Mrs Owen was diagnosed with chronic kidney disease in February 2020 and was later told to shield by her GP to avoid contracting Covid.

On March 19 2020, Mrs Owen claimed she sent a handwritten letter to her boss John Turner,  telling him she had been told to shield, suggested she could continue to work doing deliveries and reminded him she would be entitled to statutory sick pay.

Mr Turner said that because he had not seen this letter at the time, he did not know about Mrs Owens' suggestion and did not consider it as an option himself.

The tribunal heard she was given a three-month sick note by her doctor.

She was placed on furlough, receiving 80 per cent of her wage, as she would earn more money.

The tribunal heard that nearly three months later she wrote to her boss telling him she was able to return to work. 

She received a response from the business asking her for medical evidence so they could be reassured it was appropriate for her to return to work.

A few days later Mr Turner had a conversation with Mrs Owens in which he said he was concerned he might have to make redundancies.

The tribunal heard she was asked if she wanted to take redundancy if she could not return to work.

Following that conversation, she wrote to him again saying she feared being made redundant.

The hearing found that Mrs Owen was not likely to be made redundant during the summer of 2020.

The next month she resigned.

In the hearing she suggested that during her absence a younger member of staff had been employed to carry out her duties and was effectively being trained up to take over her role, but the judge ruled this was not the same as her being replaced.

The claimant, who was 55, says she was treated worse than the woman, who was under 18 at the time, who she says was employed in her place.