Mrs C Voice v The Executive Committee and Members of Digby South Residents Association for the Time Being: 1300248/2024
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Case No 1300248/2024
Between
Mrs C VoiceClaimantThe Executive Committee and Members of Digby South Residents Association for the Time BeingRespondent
Before
Employment Judge AliIn person for claimantNot represented for respondentDate 28 March 2025
JUDGMENT
[1]The Respondent’s name is substituted to, “The Executive Committee And Members Of Digby South Residents Association For The Time Being”.[2]The Claimant’s claim for statutory redundancy payment succeeds.[3]The Respondent is ordered to pay the Claimant £6,878. The Tribunal calculated the Claimant’s statutory redundancy payment entitlement was in the sum of £9,378, and then gave credit for a payment of £2,500 which the Respondent had already made to the Claimant towards her redundancy payment, leaving an outstanding balance of £6,878.
REASONS
JUDGMENT having been given on 28 March 2025 and written reasons having been requested in accordance with Rule 60(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2024, the following reasons are provided. Brief findings of fact[1]I heard oral evidence from the Claimant and the following findings of facts were based on her evidence and the documentation available to me. The Claimant was employed by the Respondent as a Community Care Worker between 1 March 1992 and 29 September 2023 when she was dismissed on grounds of redundancy.[2]The Respondent is an unincorporated association that had been operating the Care Project (at which the Claimant worked) since 1981. It had run this Project with local authority funding, but when this stopped on or around 30 September 2023, the Respondent ceased its operations and the Claimant was made redundant.[3]The Claimant brings a claim for redundancy payment only (and gives credit for already having been paid £2,500 towards her redundancy pay). The rest of her statutory redundancy payment is outstanding.[4]In its ET3 Response and the attached documents the Respondent does not deny the Claimant’s entitlement to a statutory redundancy payment (the Respondent calculates this to be in the sum of £7,981.20) but simply makes the point that it has insufficient funds to pay the Claimant what she is entitled to. The Respondent also note they have paid the Claimant £2,500 on or around 23 October 2023 towards her redundancy payment.
The issues
[5]The following issues required determination for the purposes of this final hearing:(1) How should the Tribunal deal with the non-attendance of Mr Greaves or anyone else on behalf of the Respondent at this final hearing?(2) Who is the correct Respondent?(3) Should the Claimant succeed in her claim for statutory redundancy payment? If so, in what amount? Conclusions How should the Tribunal deal with the non-attendance of Mr Greaves or anyone else on behalf of the Respondent at this final hearing?
Conclusions
[6]For a relatively straightforward claim, I note this case has taken some time to arrive at final hearing. The claim form was issued on 18 January 2024.[7]I note a final hearing listed on 5 June 2024 had to be postponed.[8]On 5 February 2025 the parties were given notice of today’s final hearing.[9]I note on 24 March 2025 Mr Greaves wrote to the Tribunal and indicated he would not be attending this hearing and that he would like the Tribunal to determine the claim on the basis of the documentary evidence before it.[10]Importantly I am not satisfied that Mr Greaves or anyone for the Respondent would be able to attend an adjourned hearing in the future, even if I was to postpone this hearing. Mr Greaves has been the individual from the Respondent dealing with this claim. He has already indicated that matters should be dealt with in the Respondent’s absence. And further to his correspondence of 24 March 2025, on 26 March 2025 Zualfqar Hussain emailed the Tribunal to say that Mr Greaves was in hospital and so would not be able to attend today’s hearing in any event.[11]Having particular regard to the overriding objective, Rule 47 of The Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 and all the circumstances of this case, I determine that this final hearing should therefore proceed in the absence of the Respondent organisation or any representative acting on its behalf. Who is the correct Respondent?[12]The actual name of the Respondent unincorporated association is “Digby South Residents Association” and not “Digby South Residence Association” as stated on the ET1.[13]Certain considerations apply for the purposes of legal proceedings in the employment tribunals in relation to the correct identity of a party when it is an unincorporated association.[14]Senior Legal Officer Metcalf raised on 21 May 2024 that the Claimant's employer (and Respondent to this claim) was in fact, "The executive committee and members of Digby South Residents Association for the time being". He invited the parties to comment on this substitution for the purposes of these proceedings. This point does not appear to have been clearly conceded by Mr Greaves on behalf of the Respondent.[15]I conclude that the substitution suggested by Senior Legal Officer Metcalf is correct having regard to the decisions in Affleck and ors v Newcastle Mind and ors [1999] ICR 852, EAT, and Nazir & Anor v Asim & Anor (UKEAT/0332/09/RN).[16]The Claimant agreed at the hearing that the name of the Respondent should be substituted in these circumstances.[17]Rule 35 of The Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 gives me broad discretion to substitute parties to a proceeding and I exercise this discretion in this case because it is in the interests of justice to do so and it will allow for the just disposal of these proceedings. Rule 35(1) provides: “The Tribunal may on its own initiative, or on the application of a party or any other person wishing to become a party, add any person as a party, by way of substitution or otherwise, if it appears that there are issues between that person and any of the existing parties falling within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal which it is in the interests of justice to have determined in the proceedings”.[18]The name of the Respondent in this case is therefore substituted and becomes, "The executive committee and members of Digby South Residents Association for the time being".[19]This substitution does not in fact introduce any new party to the proceedings and therefore it is not necessary to re-serve these proceedings. Should the Claimant succeed in her claim for statutory redundancy payment? If so, in what amount?[20]I have not had the benefit of any witness statements or a Bundle of documents in this case. However I have heard oral evidence from the Claimant confirming the essential facts, and given the straight-forward nature of the claim in this case, and the significant common ground that exists between the parties, I am of the view that this claim can be fairly determined on the basis of the claim form, response and very limited correspondence before the Tribunal.[21]I have had regard to sections 135 and 163 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. I conclude the Claimant was entitled to a statutory redundancy payment when her employment was terminated.[22]The Respondent does not dispute the dates given by the Claimant for her employment with them, or dispute that her employment was terminated in circumstances which entitled the Claimant to a statutory redundancy payment. In her ET1 claim form the Claimant has not provided her gross wage figure. In its ET3 response at section 5 the Respondent suggests the Claimant’s gross wage was £1,354.60 per month (i.e. £312.60 per week). In oral evidence the Claimant confirmed this figure was likely correct.[23]I calculate the Claimant’s statutory redundancy payment entitlement to therefore amount to £9,378 based on:(1) What date was the Claimant made redundant? 29 September 2023(2) How old was the Claimant on the date she was made redundant? 66 years old(3) How many years had the Claimant worked for her employer? 31 years(4) What was her weekly pay before tax and any other deductions? £312.60.[24]I note both the Claimant and the Respondent are agreed that the Claimant has been paid £2,500 already towards her redundancy payment. The outstanding balance is therefore £6,878.