Claimant v KPPES Ltd — 2021

Andrew Spinks brought a claim against KPPES Ltd complaining of age discrimination and of being unlawfully deprived of "other payments". The respondent said the basis of the claims was unclear and had sought further specification. A preliminary hearing was listed to decide the respondent's strike-out application. Mr Spinks did not attend the hearing, and the tribunal proceeded in his absence under Rule 47 after considering his late postponement request and later emails saying he had work commitments.

The tribunal recorded that the claimant said he was 59, had been furloughed until September 2020, and expected to be protected under employment law. He said the end of furlough left him unable to support his family and led to debt. The respondent relied on the employment contract, which contained no obligation to furlough, and on the furlough agreement signed by the claimant on 9 April 2020, which made furlough discretionary. The claimant was notified on 21 August 2020 that furlough was ending.

Applying Rule 37(1), the tribunal held that the claimant had not identified any statutory or contractual basis showing unlawful conduct by the respondent. It found no basis for direct age discrimination under s.13 Equality Act 2010 because he did not identify any less favourable treatment than a younger employee, and his point that older workers might find it harder to find new work did not itself amount to discrimination. The tribunal also said his understanding of indirect discrimination was mistaken and that his grievance was really directed at the Government's furlough guidance rather than any unlawful act by KPPES Ltd. The claims were therefore struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success, and no remedy was awarded.