Mr P Caveney v BLE Lighting and Power Ltd: 1806625/2021
JUDGMENT
[1]The claimant’s application for interim relief under the provisions of s128 and s129 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 is rejected. NOTES[1]Reasons for this judgment were 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.[2]The background to this judgment is set out in the Tribunal’s case management summary document of 13 January 2022. Case Number: 1806625/2021 2 Employment Judge Deeley 13 January 2022 Public access to Employment Tribunal judgments Judgments and written reasons for judgments, where they are provided, are published in full online at www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions shortly after a copy has been sent to the parties in the case. Case Number: 1806625/2021 1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant Respondent v Mr P Caveney BLE Lighting and Power Ltd REMEDY HEARING Heard at: Leeds by CVP On: 4 September 2023 Before: Employment Judge O’Neill Ms J Lee Mr L Priestly Appearance: For the Claimant: Mrs A White (Legal Executive Advocate) For the Respondent: Mr Sellars (Management Team) With Mr Arnold and Mr Sutcliffe Managers in the Respondent businessREASONS
[1]The claim of unfair dismissal having succeeded the matter was set down for a remedy hearing. A finding of 75% Contribution had already been made. The Judgement was reserved in order to allow Mrs White time to attend a hospital appointment. Case Number: 1806625/2021 2 Concessions.[2]In discussion the claimant conceded - that no claim had been made in the ET1 or at all for compensation in respect of holiday accumulated but not taken and therefor such a claim may not be considered at this hearing. - that no claim for notice pay had been made in the ET1 or at all and that such a claim may not be considered at this hearing. - That no money claims had been made under Paragraph 8 ET1 at all.[3]In discussion the respondent agreed - That loss of statutory rights should be £250 - That pension loss should be £980.25 - That no counterclaim having been made by the respondent the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to deal with the recovery of training costs or credit card payments by the Respondent.Evidence
[4]The Tribunal heard from the claimant and Mr Sellars. Each had provided a written statement which was taken as read. Mr Sellars cross examined the claimant. Mrs White chose not to cross examine Mr Sellars in view of the concessions made. Each answered questions from the Tribunal.[5]There was an agreed Bundle paginated and indexed of 236 pages.Findings
[6]The parties agreed the core facts set out in Appendix 1 – Details.[7]Mr Caveney gave undisputed evidence of having had a 2018 Volvo S20 2 litre car which he was entitled to drive for personal use. He paid for the petrol and made an expenses claim when he used it for business mileage. All expenses such as repair, recovery and insurance were met by the respondent. Mr Caveney claimed compensation of £4000 being the cost of a Vauxhall Astra he purchased to replace his company car. He has not been given a company car with the new firm.[8]In the Bundle the Tribunal saw a P11D in which for the 6 weeks in tax year ending April 2020 the value of the Company car was given as about £900 ie £150 a week on which the claimant would have been taxed. This value appears consistent with the government guidance to which we were referred. Case Number: 1806625/2021 3Conclusions
[9]The parties were in agreement as to the core details from which our calculations have been made and also agreed pension loss and loss of statutory rights.[10]The point of dispute related to the loss of a company car. The claimant claims a replacement cost of £4000. The Respondent argues that the compensation should be calculated on the value of the benefit. The claimant has found employment at a higher salary than in his job with the respondent but has never had a company car. Taking the value in the P11D and offsetting the approximate tax that the claimant would have paid and the likely depreciation after April 2020 we conclude that £4000 is not inconsistent with the HMRC method and we award £4000 before deductions.[11]We award the following sums as set out in Appendix 1 below Basic award £408.00 Compensatory award including statutory rights £2,167.34 Total £2,575.34 4 September 2023 Employment Judge O’Neill Appendix 1Conclusions
[1]Details Date of birth of claimant 30/07/1972 Date started employment 01/02/2019 Effective Date of Termination 01/12/2021 Period of continuous service (years) 2 Age at Effective Date of Termination 49 Date new equivalent job started or expected to start 28/02/2022 Remedy hearing date 04/09/2023 Date by which employer should no longer be liable (Save for the car loss) 28/02/2022 Statutory notice period (weeks) 2 Net weekly pay at EDT 473.44 Case Number: 1806625/2021 4 Gross weekly pay at EDT 639.42 Gross annual pay at EDT 33,250.08[2]Basic award Basic award Number of qualifying weeks (3) x Gross weekly pay (544.00) 1,632.00 Less contributory fault (basic award) @ 75% -1,224.00 Less redundancy pay already awarded 0.00 Total basic award 408.00[3]Compensatory award (immediate loss) Loss of net earnings Number of weeks (12.7) x Net weekly pay (473.44) 6,012.69 Plus loss of statutory rights 250.00 Plus loss of commission and/or bonus 0.00 Less payment in lieu 0.00 Less ex-gratia payment 0.00 Less non-recoupable benefits 0.00 Less early payment of compensation 0.00 Plus Company Car 4,000.00 Plus loss of pension 980.25 Less sums obtained, or should have been obtained, through mitigation -2,573.56 new employment (12/12/2021 to 27/02/2022) Total compensation (immediate loss) 8,669.38[4]Adjustments to total compensatory award Less Polkey deduction @ 0% 0.00 Plus failure by employer to follow statutory procedures @ 0% 0.00 Less failure by employee to follow statutory procedures @ 0% 0.00 Less deduction for making a protected disclosure in bad faith @ 0% 0.00 Less contributory fault (compensation award) @ 75% -6,502.04 Accelerated payment @ 0% 0.00 Case Number: 1806625/2021 5 Compensatory award before adjustments 8,669.38 Total adjustments to the compensatory award -6,502.04 Compensatory award after adjustments 2,167.34[5]Summary totals Basic award 408.00 Compensation award including statutory rights 2,167.34 Total 2,575.34 2,575.34