Mr G Taylor v Armadilla Accomodation Ltd: 8002895/2025

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND)

Case No 8002895/2025

Between

Mr Gary TaylorClaimant

Armadilla Accommodation LtdRespondent

Before

Employment Judge McFatridge

Mr McEntee (instructed by Solicitor) for respondent

Date 16 March 2026

JUDGMENT

[1]The claim of unfair dismissal is struck out in terms of Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2024 on the basis that it has no reasonable prospect of success.

[2]The claim for a redundancy payment is struck out in terms of Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2024 on the basis that it has no reasonable prospect of success.

[3]The claim for a protective award is struck out under Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2024 on the grounds that it has no reasonable prospect of success.

[4]The remaining claim of unlawful deduction of wages shall proceed to a hearing on a date to be fixed.

REASONS

[1]The claimant submitted a claim to the Tribunal in which he claimed that he had been unfairly dismissed by the respondent and was due a redundancy payment. He claimed that he was due a protective award and that he was due a sum in respect of arrears of wages. The respondent submitted a response in which they denied the claims. They made the point that the claimant had less than two years’ qualifying service and that in any event the claimant had been dismissed by reason of redundancy and the dismissal was procedurally and substantively fair. It was their position that three employees were dismissed by reason of redundancy in the 90 day period beginning with the claimant’s dismissal and that accordingly the claimant was not entitled to a protective award. They denied that any sums were due in respect of arrears of wages. On 14 January the Tribunal wrote to the claimant asking him to set out the legal basis of his claims of unfair dismissal and for a protective award given that he appeared to accept that he had less than two years’ service and that less than 20 employees had been dismissed within the relevant 90 day period. The claimant submitted a response on 14 and 28 January 2026. By that time a preliminary hearing had been fixed and the parties were advised that the matter would be dealt with at the preliminary hearing. Shortly before the preliminary hearing the respondent’s representative asked that the preliminary hearing be converted to an open preliminary hearing so as to deal with strike outs on the basis that they considered the claims for a protective award and for unfair dismissal had no reasonable prospect of success.

[2]At the preliminary hearing I asked the claimant to set out the claims which he was making. He confirmed that he was claiming unfair dismissal on the basis he had been unfairly selected for redundancy. He was also critical of the procedure adopted by the respondent and set out a number of reasons why he believed that the dismissal was extremely unfair. He confirmed that he was claiming a protective award. He said that he had researched the matter online and in his further particulars he had referred to the ACAS guidelines suggesting that consultation is appropriate in all redundancy situations, not just where more than 20 are being dismissed. He also confirmed that he was claiming unlawful deduction of wages. There were two aspects to this. The first was that he believed that he should have received a pay rise from £14 to £15 per hour. He believed that he ought to have been paid this enhanced rate because he was working as Team Leader. He also claimed eight hours’ pay on the basis that when he had been working away in England for the company the company did not pay him for the 45 minutes’ travelling time between his hotel and the site where he was working.

[3]The claimant confirmed that he was not making any other claims.

[4]The respondent’s representative then made a short submission indicating that he believed that the Tribunal simply did not have jurisdiction to hear the claims of unfair dismissal/redundancy payment or the claim for a protective award. He indicated that he believed it would be appropriate to fix a one day hearing to deal with the wages act claim.

[5]The claimant then made a short submission. He accepted that he had less than two years’ service. His position was that if the dismissal was so egregiously unfair then he should have a remedy. He accepted that less than 20 employees had been dismissed within the appropriate period but referred to sources online which indicated that consultation was appropriate in all cases. He made the point that there had been absolutely no prior warning or consultation in his case and that he had simply been called in to a meeting and dismissed. Reasons for judgment

[6]I considered that I was in a position to deal with the strike out applications at the hearing in terms of rule 38. I had given the claimant the opportunity to make representations and he had done so. It was clear from the claimant’s own statements that he had less than two years’ qualifying service. The right to claim unfair dismissal is contained in section 94 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Section 108 of that Act clearly states that section 94 does not apply where an individual has less than two years’ qualifying service. I did consider whether any of the exceptions to section 108 applied. Whilst the claimant did refer to health and safety matters in various of his statements he also made it clear that he was raising these issues as a long-standing and well-known employee rather than as an official health and safety representative. Accordingly, it appeared to me that there was no possibility that the exemption would apply. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear the claim of unfair dismissal and that claim has no reasonable prospect of success.

[7]The right to claim a protective award is contained in sections 188 and 188A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Consolidation Act 1992. The duty to consult applies where an employer supposing to dismiss as redundant 20 or more employees at one establishment within a period of 90 days or less. That was not the situation here. Whilst I entirely accept the claimant’s position that the ACAS guidelines suggest that consultation is appropriate in every redundancy case the fact of the matter is that the claimant has no right to claim a protective award in terms of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Consolidation Act. The Tribunal has no other source of jurisdiction in the matter and accordingly this claim has no reasonable prospect of success and requires to be struck out.