Mr David Stephens v Qatar Airways Group Qcsc — 2022

Mr David Stephens was employed by Qatar Airways Group QCSC as an Airport Services Manager at Cardiff Airport from 4 June 2018 until 30 April 2021. The tribunal found that the respondent dismissed him by reason of redundancy following the suspension and closure of Cardiff operations during the COVID-19 pandemic. The claimant accepted that he had been warned and consulted, so the dispute focused on whether the redundancy selection and the search for alternative employment were fair under section 98(4) ERA 1996.

On selection, the tribunal found that the respondent did not actually turn its mind to a national pool of all Airport Services Managers, but held that this did not make the dismissal unfair. It relied on the respondent’s prior practice of local pooling, the fact that Cardiff was the only ASM role directly affected by the closure, the different operational conditions at the various airports, and the pressures created by the pandemic. The tribunal also held that the claimant’s mobility clause did not make it unreasonable to avoid a wider pool.

On alternative employment, the tribunal found that the respondent took reasonable steps to identify and facilitate applications for suitable roles, including roles at London Gatwick, London Heathrow, Manchester and overseas locations. It rejected the claimant’s case that the respondent had failed to support his applications or had been influenced by a complaint made by another employee. A particular issue was the Manchester ASM role: the tribunal found that the claimant had chosen not to apply for it when it was advertised in November 2020, had shown no interest in it during consultation, and only raised it later in his appeal. By then, the role had been offered to Mr Bryce, and the tribunal held it would not have been reasonable to reopen that recruitment process.

The tribunal concluded that the respondent acted within the range of reasonable responses in treating redundancy as a sufficient reason for dismissal and that the claimant was fairly dismissed within section 98 ERA 1996. The unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed, and no remedy was awarded.