Mr Bryan Joseph v Heathrow Express Operating Company Limited — 2023

Mr Joseph worked as a customer concierge for Heathrow Express from 21 February 2011 until 30 June 2020, when he left under a voluntary severance exercise during a restructuring prompted by lockdown and reduced passenger numbers. The tribunal found the dismissal was for redundancy or, alternatively, some other substantial reason, and that the process was fair under s.98(4) ERA 1996: the respondent opened consultation, shared the proposed SSA role and FAQs with staff and the RMT, and offered the claimant a part-time SSA role which he declined.

The age discrimination claim failed because the claimant's case was not that age caused his dismissal. His complaint was that, being 64, he would find it harder than a younger person to find work afterwards. The tribunal held that this was a complaint about the consequences of dismissal rather than a case of less favourable treatment because of age, and it found nothing material that the respondent did or omitted to do on grounds of age.

The equal pay claim also failed. The tribunal accepted that the claimant and comparator Carole Crookes / Mrs Crooks did like work and that she was paid more, but it found the gap was caused by administrative errors in pay freezes and later salary increases. Those errors were the whole explanation for the differential and were not linked to sex, so the GMF defence succeeded. The tribunal then held that the notice pay and redundancy payment figures were correctly calculated on the respondent's salary figures once equal pay was rejected.

On holiday pay, the tribunal found the claimant's reading of clause 6 was wrong. It held the clause reflected a mistaken template and, in any event, should be read as 26.4 days pro rata to his half-time hours, which produced 13.2 days rounded to 14. It rejected the claimant's claim to extra holiday beyond 14 days a year, and also rejected the May-June 2020 overtime/annual leave premium point for union work during furlough. The tribunal further refused a late amendment to add a 2017 overtime deductions claim, applying s.23(4A) and (4B) ERA 1996 and Selkent principles. The separate travel-privileges contract claim was stayed by consent and was not finally determined.