ONS denied promotion to woman because of her gender, tribunal finds

Managers tasked with ending sex discrimination at the UK’s statistics body have failed to recognise that male economists are being favoured above women, an employment tribunal has found.

The tribunal awarded £19,000 in damages to a former employee at the Office for National Statistics (ONS), finding she had been overlooked for promotion in favour of less experienced male colleagues.

Read more: MPs slam BBC over response to equal pay report

Olwen Renowden, an economist with over 20 years experience, was pipped to two more senior roles at the ONS in 2017, which on average pay between £10,000 and £15,000 more.

The tribunal pointed out 80 per cent of the higher grades of economists in the department are men, while there are many fewer women at the better paid Grade 6 level than the more junior Grade 7.

“There is a culture where ad hoc promotions are made which favour male economists and which leads to an advantage to those so appointed who seek permanent promotion,” Judge Wayne Beard wrote.

The tribunal found that the ONS had failed, without good cause, to meet its own policy of ensuring selection panels are gender balanced.

It said that the culture in the body “is one where advantage and favouritism to males is not recognised as potentially discriminatory.”

“The approach to gender balance … pointed towards a general culture where discrimination and, in particular, sex discrimination, is not properly understood by those who are required to ensure its elimination,” the tribunal said.

Renowden, who was represented at an early stage by the Prospect union, said it was important that economists were representative, and that she hopes the result will “make a real difference”.

“I believe this case illustrates an important reason why progress on diversity is so slow.”

Read more: Calls for positive discrimination are patriarchal and patronising

The ONS said it “values the contributions of all its people and is continually working to support everyone in progressing their careers.”

It added: “We are considering the ruling in this case very carefully.”