Member I Ashraf Tribunal Member J McCaig Mr D Sookur v Highland Coaches Limited — 2024

The tribunal held that all complaints failed except an unauthorised deduction from wages arising from non-payment in lieu of 5 days' accrued untaken holiday on termination. It found that C's 2020 leave had been carried forward only as basic leave under the Working Time Regulations, not additional leave, and that after 15 days were taken in January 2024 five days remained unpaid. The tribunal indicated a provisional gross calculation of £961.54 based on a £50,000 salary and invited submissions on remedy.

The direct race discrimination complaints arising before 17 January 2024 were dismissed for want of jurisdiction because they were out of time under s.123 EA and the tribunal refused to extend time on a just and equitable basis. Those allegations were the exclusion from operational management decisions and the diversion of duties from November 2022, the August 2023 'monkey business' remark, and the failure to offer an opportunity to apply for the CGM role. The tribunal accepted that the delay was substantial, that C feared for his job, but found that this did not justify an extension in the circumstances.

The race discrimination claims within time were also dismissed. The tribunal accepted ML's evidence that the December 2023 restructuring plan was driven by financial pressure and the need to reduce costs, that C's AGM post could be removed from the structure, and that the CGM role had a different, UK-wide remit. It found that R2 did not instruct the pooling decision, dismissal, or appeal outcome, and that race played no part in those decisions. Because the later discrimination allegations were not established, the earlier claims could not be treated as a continuing course of conduct.

The victimisation and automatic unfair dismissal complaints failed. The tribunal held that the 21 August 2023 and 30 December 2023 emails did not amount to protected acts because they did not make an allegation of an Equality Act contravention or otherwise show a connection with the Act. It also held that the 30 December 2023 email did not amount to an allegation that R1 had infringed a relevant statutory right for s.104 ERA purposes; alternatively, dismissal was for restructuring and cost-saving reasons, not because of that email.

The ordinary unfair dismissal complaint was dismissed. The tribunal found a genuine redundancy situation or, alternatively, SOSR: R1's requirements for work of the particular kind carried out by an Area General Manager had ceased or diminished as part of a reorganisation. It accepted that C was warned and consulted on 31 January, 15 February and 1 March 2024, and that although the first-stage consultation did not give full details of all alternative vacancies, that omission was cured on appeal when four hotel manager roles were identified and declined. It concluded the dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses.