Loomis UK Redundancy Selection Upheld: No Religious Discrimination Found
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has dismissed Mr. Rafiqul Islam's appeal, upholding an earlier ruling that his redundancy selection by Loomis UK wasn't discriminatory.
• public
Redundancy Selection Process Deemed Fair
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has dismissed an appeal by Mr Rafiqul Islam against Loomis UK Ltd, relating to his redundancy selection. The case, Mr Rafiqul Islam v Loomis UK Ltd [2025] EAT 49, centered on Mr Islam's claim that his selection for redundancy was a result of direct discrimination based on his Islamic faith.
Background: Restructuring and Redundancy
Loomis UK, a cash management business, underwent significant workforce reductions due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Mr Islam, a driver/custodian, was made redundant during the second phase of these cuts. He argued that his selection was both unfair and discriminatory.
Tribunal's Initial Findings
The original Employment Tribunal found that Mr Islam's dismissal was both procedurally and substantively fair. It rejected his claim of religious discrimination, stating there was no evidence to support it.
The Appeal: Burden of Proof
Mr Islam appealed, arguing the Tribunal failed to correctly apply the burden of proof as outlined in Section 136 of the Equality Act 2010. He claimed statistical evidence regarding the redundancy selection should have shifted the burden to Loomis UK to prove the absence of discrimination.
EAT Decision: No Error of Law
Marcus Pilgerstorfer KC, Deputy Judge of the High Court, dismissed the appeal. The EAT found that while the Tribunal didn't explicitly reference Section 136, it had, in essence, considered whether Mr Islam presented a prima facie case of discrimination and concluded that he hadn't.
The EAT acknowledged that statistical evidence could, in certain cases, shift the burden of proof. However, it ruled that the figures presented by Mr Islam, specifically concerning the number of Muslim employees made redundant, were insufficient to do so. The EAT also noted that these figures were not presented to the original Tribunal in the same manner as they were on appeal.
Key Considerations: Statistics and Evidence
The EAT emphasised the need for caution when relying on statistical evidence, especially when dealing with small sample sizes and lacking data on the overall workforce demographics. It highlighted that the claimant did not provide enough evidence to link the redundancy selections to religious discrimination.
Outcome
The Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld the original Tribunal's decision, finding no error of law in its handling of the burden of proof or its assessment of the evidence presented.
Read the entire judgement here: Mr Rafiqul Islam v Loomis UK Ltd [2025] EAT 49
