Mr A Burch v Medi 4 Ambulance Services Ltd: 1401902/2018
JUDGMENT
Following Rule 21 liability judgment The judgment of the tribunal is as follows:[1]The remaining claim before the tribunal (to which the rule 21 liability judgment related) was one of automatically unfair dismissal for making a protected disclosure under section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996.[2]The tribunal declares that the claimant was unfairly dismissed.[3]Basic Award for unfair dismissal: The claimant is not entitled to a basic award.[4]Compensatory award for unfair dismissal:a. The tribunal calculates that the compensatory award which would otherwise be payable is £35,822.00.b. The respondent unreasonably failed to comply with the applicable ACAS Code of Practice. The tribunal considers it just and equitable to increase the compensatory by 10%. Case Number: 1401902/2018 2c. The respondent is therefore ordered to pay the claimant the sum of £39,404.20.[5]The Recoupment Regulations do not apply. ______________________ Employment Judge Emerton Date 22 January 2019 Note Reasons for the judgment having been given orally at the hearing, written reasons will not be provided unless a request was made by either party at the hearing or a written request is presented by either party within 14 days of the sending of this written record of the decision. Case Number: 1401902/2018 procedures at the start of the hearing. The respondent had in any event had months to take legal advice from their solicitors as to how to approach the remedy hearing, rather than to expect employment tribunal employees to give them legal advice. The email of 15 January 2019 was plainly inviting the respondent to participate, and went as far as to direct the respondent to confirm whether or not someone would attend. The respondent chose to ignore the contents of that email: if there had genuinely been a positive decision not to attend because of a conversation with an un-named clerk, the tribunal would expect the respondent to have set this out in a reply to the tribunal’s email of 15 January 2019.[12]Overall, the tribunal is satisfied that the respondent had sufficient notice of the remedy hearing, and even if (which is doubted) the respondent only learned of the date a week or so in advance, there was no request for a postponement, and the respondent failed to respond to the tribunal’s direction to confirm its intentions as to attending. The respondent could have attended, and sought to put forward arguments as to the amount of any compensation. The time to make such arguments was at the remedy hearing, not in an email sent more than three weeks later. The claimant provided credible information to the tribunal, and that was the basis of the remedy judgment.[13]The arguments set out in the reconsideration application do not disclose any arguable basis to conclude, under rule 72(1), that there is a reasonable prospect of the original decision on remedy being varied or revoked.