Tanya Jones was instructed by Alex Passman of Tom Street Law to act for 34 Claimants in respect of their claims against the Respondent, Dnata Catering Services Limited. The Tribunal proceeded using a ‘Test Claimant’.
The Claimants were employed at London Heathrow Airport when the Covid-19 pandemic hit. The impact on the Respondent’s revenue was catastrophic and reduced to 10% during the lockdown period. The Claimants initially through their Union representatives were engaged in consultations to accept contractual changes to their employment terms and conditions. This would see their 40 contractual hours reduce to a guaranteed 20 hours minimum a week, with a promise to review and look to increase hours when the Respondent’s revenue hit 75%. The Claimants refused to change their contracts and were ultimately dismissed, being told it was not a redundancy situation, and they were not entitled to a redundancy payment.
Tanya successfully argued on behalf of the Test Claimant that her dismissal was by reason of redundancy within the meaning of section 139(1)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The Respondent defended the claim on the basis the dismissal was fair pursuant to section 98(1)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, in that the dismissal was for some other substantial reason. Employment Judge Eeley found the wording of the legislation had been satisfied and the Respondent’s need for employees to carry out work of a particular kind had diminished. Furthermore, there was no suitable offer of alternative employment, and the Claimant did not reasonably refuse to accept the new terms and conditions.
Employment Judge Eeley held the Test Claimant was entitled to a redundancy payment, and the matter has been listed for a remedy hearing for the remaining 33 Claimants.
If you have any questions regarding this matter or wish to instruct Tanya, please contact 01392 285200 or civil@magdalenchambers.co.uk .