Ms J Shrestha v Saroia Staffing Services Ltd (in administration): 1805600/2024
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Case No 1805600/2024
Between
Ms J ShresthaClaimantSaroia Staffing Services Ltd (in administration)Respondent
Before
Employment Judge ShulmanMr H Wiltshire (instructed by Counsel) for claimantNot represented for respondentDate 7 January 2025
JUDGMENT
[1]The proper title of the respondent is Saroia Staffing Services Limited in administration.[2]Judgment having been given for unfair dismissal on 5 November 2024 the remedy for unfair dismissal is as set out below.[3]The claimant elected for compensation and not reinstatement nor reengagement.[4]The Recoupment Regulations apply (see annexe for explanation of their effect).[5]Compensation was awarded as follows:- 5.1. Basic award - £940.58. 5.2. Compensatory award: 5.2.1. Immediate loss - £1,734.66 5.2.2 Future loss - £184.24. 5.2.3 Cost of a skilled work visa - £784.00 5.2.4 Loss of Statutory employment rights - £500.00 5.3 An award pursuant to 207A(2) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (TULRA) was made as to 25% of all compensation, save for the skilled work visa. Having regard to Section 123(2)(a) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 the 25% is of £3,359.48 and amounts to £839.87.[6]The total of all compensation, save for the skilled work visa, amounts to £4,199.35.[7]Adding the cost of the skill work visa in the sum of £784.00 – the grand total of compensation is £4,983.35.
REASONS
[1]Employment Judge Davies gave Judgment under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules on 5 November 2024, in which she ordered £228.52 by way of unauthorised deduction of wages, which has apparently been paid. The judge also found that the claim of unfair dismissal is well founded. She did not say whether the claim was of ordinary unfair dismissal or automatically unfair dismissal and I have treated the claim as the former. This hearing is to deal with remedy for unfair dismissal.[2]The claimant does not elect for reinstatement or re-engagement but elects for compensation.[3]The Recoupment Regulations apply (see annexe for their explanation of their effect for basic award). The date of commencement of the claimant’s employment was 30 November 2021 and her effective date of termination was 10 May 2024. Her date of birth is 14 May 2000 which made her 24 years of age as at the effective date of termination. Her gross weekly pay was £470.29. The basic award therefore amounts to two (period of service) times one (statutory multiplier) times £470.29. Total of basic award £940.58.[4]Compensatory award. The claimant’s net weekly pay was £400.31 and her immediate loss was from 11 May 2024 to 11 June 2024 when she found alternative employment. Immediate loss was £1,734.66.[5]The claimant also claims by way of immediate loss a sum which represents the difference between what she earned with the respondent and what she is earning in her new job. We know that she was earning £400.31 per week net in her job with the respondent and she earns £357.78 in her new job and she claims a shortfall of £184.24. There is no more immediate loss.[6]The claimant claims the cost of the skilled work visa which she applied for and was granted on 29 May 2024 and which cost her £784.00. The reason for this is that she is not a UK National but is Nepalese. She needed a new skilled work visa for her new job. Her old visa in relation to working for the respondent was no good. The visa is granted by the Home Office. I carefully considered whether this was a matter for which I could properly make an award and I took account of Section 123(2)(a) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, which permits a Tribunal to grant compensation for expenses reasonably incurred by the claimant in consequence of the dismissal. I find that the claimant had no choice but to apply for the new visa and this was caused by her dismissal.I therefore order £784.00.[7]The claimant also claimed £500 a month for 12 months because she had to go to Halifax for her new job but nevertheless maintain somewhere to live in Doncaster to enable the claimant’s partner to keep his job. This was a substantial sum of money and I find that in any case the claim is too remote. There were all sorts of ways in which the claimant could deal with her accommodation problems and this did not in our view have anything to do with her dismissal.[8]I award £500.00 for loss of statutory employment rights.[9]I was asked to consider an uplift pursuant to Section 207A(2) TULRA in that the respondent failed to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures (2015) (Code). The claimant was not invited to a meeting prior to her dismissal, which seems to me a fundamental part of the disciplinary process and I find that there were breaches of Articles 8 to 13 of the Code and accordingly I order an uplift of 25% which is to be levied on all compensation, except for the costs of the skilled work visa. The total compensation excluding the cost of the skilled work visa is £3,359.48 and therefore the uplift of 25% is £839.87.[10]The subtotal of compensation after adding the uplift is £4,199.35, and if we add the cost of the skilled work visa of £784.00 the grand total of compensation is £4,983.35.[11]For the purposes of calculating the prescribed element(i) the grand total is £4,983.35. The prescribed element(ii) is £1,918.90. The period of the prescribed element(iii) is 7 May 2024 to 10 July 2024. Excess of (i) over (ii) is(iv)£3,064.45.[12]In all the circumstances the respondent shall pay the claimant £4,983.35.