Mr S Alexander v Lloyds Bank plc: 8000101/2025

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND)
Case No 8000101/2025
Mr S AlexanderClaimantLloyds Bank PLCRespondent
Employment Judge CampbellMr S De’Giovanni (instructed by Solicitor) for respondentDate 12 May 2025

JUDGMENT

[1]The tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the claimant’s complaint and his claim is therefore dismissed.

REASONS

[1]An open preliminary hearing was scheduled for today to determine whether the tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the claim which consists of one legal complaint, namely failure to inform and/or consult in relation to collective redundancies under section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. ETZ4(WR)[2]The respondent’s case was that the claimant was employed within a bargaining unit in relation to which it formally recognised two independent trade unions, Unite and Accord. It accepts that over 100 redundancies were proposed but maintains that its obligations regarding information and consultation were satisfied by communication with the unions who represented employees within the bargaining unit.[3]The claimant was not a member of either union and was not generally aware of any consultation which had taken place between the respondent and the unions.[4]Having clarified the parties’ positions it was clear that the tribunal had no jurisdiction to decide the claim. As explained orally, this is because it could only have been brought by one or both of the unions and not any individual affected employee. No criticism of the claimant is made as his complaint relates to a technical area of employment law.[5]The claimant had made an application to postpone today’s hearing so that he could seek legal advice. This was opposed by the respondent. For reasons given orally I did not consider it to be consistent with the tribunal’s overriding objective, as set out in rule 3 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024, for the hearing to be postponed and rescheduled and I confirmed that I would dismiss the claim. I pointed out that if the claimant wishes to challenge that decision he can apply to have the judgment reconsidered within 14 days, under rules 68 to 71 of the above Rules. If he or a legal representative takes that option the application will be considered on its merits.