Customer concierge loses redundancy and discrimination claims against Heathrow Express
A customer concierge with nine years' service who was made redundant after refusing a new role has lost his claims for unfair dismissal, age discrimination, and equal pay. The tribunal found the redundancy process was fair.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #redundancy
- #age-discrimination
- #equal-pay
- #administrative-error
- #holiday-entitlement
- #voluntary-severance
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a customer concierge from 21 February 2011 until 30 June 2020.
- The respondent restructured due to financial pressures from the Elizabeth line and COVID-19, merging CC and MSA roles into SSA roles.
- The claimant was offered a part-time SSA role but declined and opted for voluntary severance.
- The claimant's equal pay claim failed because the pay disparity was due to administrative errors, not sex.
- The claimant's holiday pay claim failed because the contract clause was a mistake and he was only entitled to 14 days per year.
- The age discrimination claim failed because it focused on post-dismissal consequences, not the reason for dismissal.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began working for the respondent as a customer concierge on a half-time basis.
-
Consultation began
Respondent opened a 45-day consultation period on proposed redundancies and role changes.
-
Virtual presentation to staff
Mr Morgan-Batney presented the proposal to merge CC and MSA roles into SSA roles.
-
Preference forms sent
Employees were asked to express preference for full-time, part-time, or voluntary redundancy.
-
Claimant returned preference form
Claimant indicated he could not confirm a preference and intended to retain employment.
-
SSA role offered
Claimant was offered a part-time SSA role with reduced pay and different shift pattern.
-
Claimant declined offer
Claimant declined the SSA role, citing ethical concerns and work-life balance.
-
Claimant confirmed voluntary severance
Claimant chose voluntary severance after further correspondence.
-
Employment terminated
Claimant's employment ended; he received a voluntary severance package of £12,255 and notice pay.
-
Judgment issued
Employment Tribunal dismissed all claims except the travel claim, which was stayed.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's dismissal for redundancy was fair, whether he was discriminated against because of age, whether he was entitled to equal pay, and whether he was owed various payments including holiday pay and notice pay.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all of the claimant's claims except a travel claim which was stayed.
- The redundancy was genuine and the consultation process was fair. The claimant was offered a suitable alternative role but declined it.
- The equal pay claim failed because the pay difference was due to an administrative error, not the claimant's sex.
- The age discrimination claim failed because the claimant could not show that his age was a reason for his dismissal.
- The holiday pay claim failed because the contract clause was a mistake and he was only entitled to 14 days per year.
- No compensation was awarded as all claims were dismissed.
Lessons & takeaways
- A genuine redundancy situation and a fair consultation process can protect employers from unfair dismissal claims.
- Equal pay claims require evidence that the pay disparity is due to sex, not administrative errors.
- Age discrimination claims must show that age was a factor in the dismissal decision, not just post-dismissal consequences.
- Holiday entitlement clauses in contracts may be subject to correction if they are clearly a mistake.
- Voluntary severance can be a way to end employment without a finding of unfair dismissal.
A redundancy process that passed the test
This case shows how a well-documented redundancy process can withstand scrutiny even when the employee feels they were treated unfairly. The claimant, a customer concierge with nine years' service, was made redundant after Heathrow Express restructured due to financial pressures from the Elizabeth line and COVID-19. The company merged two roles into one and offered the claimant a part-time position, which he declined. He then opted for voluntary severance.
The tribunal found that the redundancy was genuine and the consultation was adequate. The claimant was offered a suitable alternative role and had the opportunity to discuss his concerns. The fact that he declined the role and chose voluntary severance did not make the dismissal unfair.
Why the other claims failed
The claimant also raised claims of equal pay, age discrimination, and holiday pay. The equal pay claim failed because the pay disparity was due to an administrative error, not because of his sex. The age discrimination claim failed because he could not show that his age was a reason for his dismissal; the tribunal noted that the claim focused on post-dismissal consequences rather than the reason for dismissal. The holiday pay claim failed because the contract clause was a mistake and he was only entitled to 14 days per year.
What this means for similar claims
This case is a reminder that redundancy processes can be fair even when employees disagree with the outcome. Employers who follow a genuine consultation process and offer suitable alternative roles are likely to succeed in defending unfair dismissal claims. For employees, it highlights the importance of focusing on the reason for dismissal in discrimination claims, rather than the aftermath. The case also shows that administrative errors in pay or contracts do not necessarily amount to discrimination.
Similar cases
Claims dismissed after claimants fail to attend final hearing
Two former employees who brought claims for unfair dismissal, discrimination and redundancy had their cases thrown out after failing to attend the final hearing or provide any evidence.
31-year employee made redundant: tribunal upholds fairness despite missed consultations
A tribunal has ruled that Wolseley UK Limited fairly dismissed a long-serving employee by reason of redundancy, rejecting claims of age discrimination, harassment, and victimisation.
Dismissed by text message during lockdown: a TUPE redundancy that went wrong
A graphic designer with 15 years' service was dismissed by text message during the first lockdown. The tribunal found the dismissal unfair but rejected age discrimination claims.
Redundancy dismissal and victimisation claims fail: law enforcement officer loses tribunal case
A law enforcement officer with four years' service was fairly dismissed by redundancy and his claims of race and age discrimination, harassment, and victimisation were dismissed by the tribunal.