Mr R Islam v Loomis UK Limited — 2023

Mr R Islam was employed by Loomis UK Ltd as a driver/custodian at its Dunstable depot from 11 August 2014 until 31 December 2020. The tribunal found that the respondent faced a dramatic reduction in demand during the Covid-19 pandemic and carried out phased redundancies, with the claimant selected in phase 2. Applying section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the redundancy definition in section 139, the tribunal held that redundancy was the genuine reason for dismissal and that the respondent acted reasonably in treating it as sufficient reason to dismiss him.

The tribunal found that the redundancy process was run fairly. The selection matrix had been agreed with the unions, consultation took place on 11 November and 2 December 2020, and the claimant attended both his group and one-to-one meetings. It accepted that an invitation email to the claimant contained a typographical error, but found there was no deliberate exclusion and that the timing did not make the process unfair because the claimant was able to participate and respond. The appeal process was also found to be fair, with the appeal manager reviewing the claimant’s score sheet and those of the comparators he identified before dismissing the appeal.

On scoring, the tribunal accepted the respondent’s evidence that the claimant had not performed Cash in Transit work in the preceding 12 months and had not done the training needed for the CIT or versatility scores. It also found that the matrix was applied consistently across the depot, and that one scoring error on another employee’s sheet did not undermine the process as a whole because that employee still passed the breakpoint on other skills. The tribunal rejected the claimant’s complaints about alternative employment and his request to reduce hours, finding that vacancies were advertised, that he chose not to apply, and that the overlooked reduced-hours request did not affect the outcome because his score was already within the redundancy zone.

The religion discrimination claim was dismissed. The tribunal found no evidence that the use of prayer facilities during working hours was regarded as problematic by management, no evidence of inconsistency in the treatment of Muslim staff, and no basis to conclude that religion played any part in the claimant’s selection for redundancy. The claimant’s holiday pay point was withdrawn after he accepted that the amount owed had in fact been paid.