Case 8000101/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Alexander v Lloyds Bank plc — 2025
- Case reference
- 8000101/2025
- Decision date
- 12 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Campbell
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Alexander
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe preliminary hearing was listed to determine whether the tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the claimant's complaint. The complaint was described as failure to inform and/or consult in relation to collective redundancies under section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
The respondent said the claimant was employed in a bargaining unit for which it formally recognised Unite and Accord, and that information and consultation obligations were met through communication with those unions. The claimant was not a member of either union and was not generally aware of consultation between the respondent and the unions.
The tribunal found it had no jurisdiction to decide the claim because it could only have been brought by one or both of the unions, not by an individual affected employee. The claimant's postponement application to seek legal advice was refused under the overriding objective, and the claim was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The claim was a complaint of failure to inform and/or consult in relation to collective redundancies under section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The locked taxonomy has no separate protective award or collective consultation category, so it is classified as other. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- rule 3 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- rules 68 to 71 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
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.