Case 4100402/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Kevin Banks v Click Travel Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 4100402/2021
- Decision date
- 19 July 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge B Beyzade
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Kevin Banks
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Kevin Banks was employed by Click Travel Limited from 30 January 2017 until his dismissal on 12 December 2020. The respondent had placed him on furlough in April 2020, then began a redundancy exercise in October 2020 because of the COVID-19 impact on business travel and reduced demand. The tribunal found that the respondent had a genuine redundancy situation: the requirement for employees to carry out work of a particular kind had diminished, and the claimant was dismissed solely by reason of redundancy.
The tribunal nevertheless held that the dismissal was unfair under s.98 ERA 1996 because the consultation was not fair and reasonable. In particular, the tribunal found that the respondent’s exclusion of night shift workers from the claimant’s pool was inadequately explained in the documents, and that the claimant was not given a reasonable opportunity to challenge that approach. The tribunal also found that there was little consultation about the Job Support Scheme and that the claimant’s enquiries on that point were not properly addressed. The tribunal rejected the respondent’s suggestion that consultation would have been futile.
By contrast, the tribunal found that the selection criteria were objective and were applied fairly, and that there were no suitable alternative employment opportunities within the respondent’s organisation that the claimant could reasonably have been offered. The tribunal held that the night shift roles were substantially different from the claimant’s role, so it was not outside the range of reasonable responses to leave them out of the pool. The tribunal also found no culpable or blameworthy conduct by the claimant and made no Polkey or contributory conduct reduction.
On remedy, the tribunal concluded that if a fair consultation had been carried out, the claimant would still have been dismissed fairly in any event, but two weeks later. It therefore limited compensation to two weeks’ loss of wages and the employer pension contribution for that period, producing an award of £454.59. No basic award was made because the claimant had already received his statutory redundancy payment. The prescribed element for recoupment was £454.59 for the period 12 December 2020 to 26 December 2020.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the dismissal was by reason of genuine redundancy but unfair because the consultation was not fair and reasonable. The award comprised two weeks' wages and the employer pension contribution for that period; no basic award was made because the claimant had received statutory redundancy pay. | Upheld | — | £455 |
| Part-time worker regulations | The tribunal rejected the claim under Regulation 5 of the Part Time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000, finding the dismissal arose from a genuine redundancy situation and there was no evidence of less favourable treatment on the ground of part-time status. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | The claimant withdrew this claim and it was dismissed under Rule 52. The tribunal recorded that the claimant had already received the correct statutory redundancy payment of £660.93. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £455
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £0
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £455
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
10 references- s.98 ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- s.139(1) ERA 1996
- Safeway Stores plc v Burrell
- Capita Hartshead v Byard
- Polkey v A E Dayton Services Ltd
- Iceland Frozen Foods Limited v Jones
- Software 2000 Ltd v Andrews
- s.123 ERA 1996
- Regulation 5 of The Part Time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000
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.