Case 1804791/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J McGill v VGC Leeds Limited HELD By CVP — 2020
- Case reference
- 1804791/2019
- Decision date
- 12 November 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shulman REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J McGill
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr J McGill was employed by VGC Leeds Limited as an electronic gaming team leader at the Victoria Gate casino in Leeds from 19 December 2016 until his dismissal for redundancy on 14 June 2019. The tribunal identified the sole issue as whether he had been unfairly selected for redundancy because of matters arising during his employment. Mr McGill accepted that redundancy was the reason for dismissal, but contended that his history of complaints, grievances, and the letter he sent on 27 March 2019 led to his selection.
The tribunal found that the respondent carried out a consultation process that included an explanatory note, two consultation meetings, a final consultation meeting, a vacancy list, and an appeal. It accepted that there had been leaks about the forthcoming redundancy process, including one involving the claimant, but found that this did not disturb the reasonableness of the dismissal. The tribunal also found that, although Mr McGill had raised a number of grievances and complaints over time, the claimant accepted that his role was redundant and did not materially challenge the redundancy process itself.
Applying section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the tribunal concluded that the respondent acted reasonably in treating redundancy as a sufficient reason for dismissal, and that the claimant's grievances did not disturb or interfere with the redundancy process. It found that the redundancy was not rigged and was fair and reasonable. The unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.98(4) ERA 1996
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.