Ms A Barwinska v Christian Liaigre Ltd (in corporate voluntary arrangement): 2218580/2024
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Case No 2218580/2024
Between
Ms A BarwinskaClaimantChristian Liaigre Ltd (in corporate voluntary arrangement)Respondent
Before
Employment Judge NicklinIn person for claimantNot represented for respondentDate 2 October 2024
JUDGMENT
[1]The Claimant’s claim of constructive unfair dismissal is well-founded and succeeds.[2]The Claimant has permission to amend the legal formulation of her disability discrimination claim to a claim of failure to make reasonable adjustments pursuant to section 21 of the Equality Act 2010 on the same factual basis as set out in the claim. Re-service is dispensed with. Case Number: 2218580/2024[3]The Claimant’s claim of failure to make reasonable adjustments pursuant to section 21 of the Equality Act 2010 succeeds. The Respondent failed to take such steps as are reasonable to avoid the substantial disadvantage to which the Claimant was put in respect of its requirement to vary her contracted hours compared to a non-disabled employee.[4]There shall be a remedy hearing on Monday 11th November 2024 at 10am. by CVP, with a time estimate of 3 hours, to determine the question of remedy in respect of the unfair dismissal and discrimination complaints. A case management order in this respect shall be sent to the parties separately.[5]At the remedy hearing, the tribunal shall also hear and decide the Claimant’s complaint of breach of contract/unlawful deduction from wages which was not determined at this hearing.[1]The Respondent’s application for an extension of time to file an ET3 Response dated 1st October 2024 (presented after the substantive liability hearing on 27th September 2024) is refused.[2]By consent, the Respondent must pay the Claimant the sum of £286.49 in respect of arrears of pay and commission that was owing to her on termination of her employment as at 31st December 2023. This sum is subject to any tax and/or National Insurance that may need to be deducted or paid on this amount as earnings.[3]The Respondent must pay the Claimant the following amounts (subject to recoupment as below) in respect of the basic and compensatory awards for unfair dismissal:a.£5787 in respect of the Claimant’s basic award; andb.£46,442.74 in respect of the Claimant’s grossed up compensatory award (subject to the recoupment provisions, as set out below).[4]The Respondent must pay the Claimant the following amounts for injury to feelings in respect of her claim for failure to make reasonable adjustments and interest thereon:a.£6,500 for injury to feelings; andb.£544.22 in respect of interest at 8% thereon.[5]The Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996 apply to this judgment in respect of the compensatory award for unfair dismissal only.a. The total monetary award in respect of all claims is: £59,560.45.b. The prescribed element is £36,013.c. The prescribed period is 31st December 2023 to 12th December 2024.d. The non-prescribed element is £23,547.45.[6]The non-prescribed element (£23,547.45) must be paid to the Claimant within 14 days of the date this judgment is sent to the parties. The prescribed element (£36,013) must be held by the Respondent pending any claim by the Secretary of State for recoupment of applicable benefits paid to the Claimant during the prescribed period. The balance of the prescribed element must then be paid to the Claimant once any claim by the Secretary of State has been satisfied.
REASONS
[1]By a claim form presented on 17th April 2024, the Claimant brought claims of:a. Constructive unfair dismissal;b. Disability discrimination;c. Breach of contract/unlawful deductions from wages in respect of unpaid commission and arrears of pay.[2]The Claimant was employed by the Respondent as a Senior Sales/Design Consultant from 3rd September 2017 until she resigned claiming constructive unfair dismissal with effect from 31st December 2023.[3]The Respondent did not respond to the claim. EJ Klimov reviewed the file on 19th June 2024 and decided that it was not appropriate to issue a judgment under Rule 21 of the tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. He directed that the claim proceed to a preliminary hearing which took place before EJ Adkin on 12th August 2024.[4]At the hearing before EJ Adkin a final hearing was listed to take place on 27th September 2024 (“the liability hearing”) on the basis that this was an undefended claim. I heard the case at the liability hearing on 27th September 2024 where the Claimant appeared in person and there was no representation or appearance by the Respondent.[5]At the liability hearing, I clarified the Claimant’s claims, allowed an amendment to the Claimant’s discrimination claim, heard sworn evidence from the Claimant and then decided that the unfair dismissal claim and the disability discrimination claims were well founded and succeeded. I listed this hearing on 11th November 2024 to determine remedy and to hear and decide the breach of contract/wages claim (“the remedy hearing”) as this was not resolved at the liability hearing. A judgment following the liability hearing was sent to the parties on 15th October 2024 (along with directions for the procedure at the remedy hearing).[6]At the remedy hearing on 11th November 2024, the Claimant attended representing herself, as before. A director of the Respondent, Mr Minvielle, attended along with the Respondent’s legal representative.[7]Supported by the written application for an extension of time to present the ET3 Response dated 1st October 2024, the Respondent sought permission to defend the claim notwithstanding that judgment had been given on all but the breach of contract/wages claim at the liability hearing.[8]For reasons given orally at the hearing, I decided to refuse such permission1. However, I decided that it was in accordance with the overriding objective to allow the Respondent to participate in the remedy hearing by making submissions on the Claimant’s evidence and remedy claim; submissions on her proposed calculations in respect of remedy; and any submissions on the breach of contract claim (see Rule 21(3) of the tribunal’s Rules of Procedure).
The claims
[9]At the liability hearing, the claims were clarified as follows:a. The unfair dismissal claim is based on a fundamental breach of contract. This was the Respondent’s unilateral variation of the Claimant’s employment contract to change her working hours from 10am to 6pm without consultation.b. Failure to make reasonable adjustments. The provision, criterion or practice was the requirement of the Respondent that the Claimant work varied hours of 10am – 6pm. The Claimant said that this put her at a substantial disadvantage in relation to her work compared to a nondisabled employee. She requested a move back to her contractual hours on 6th November 2023 and alleged that the Respondent had failed to prove that this request was an unreasonable step to take in order to avoid the disadvantage.c. A claim for breach of contract/unlawful deduction from wages. This consisted of a claim for £286.49 in respect of arrears of pay and commission. Brief summary of findings at liability hearing relevant to the remedy decision[10]I heard sworn evidence from the Claimant, supplemented by her detailed witness statement and exhibited documents. This was comprised within a bundle running to 138 pages. 1 As full reasons were given orally at the remedy hearing and written reasons were not requested at that hearing, written reasons will not be provided on the issue of the Respondent’s application unless requested within 14 days of the date this judgment is sent to the parties.[11]The Respondent is a luxury furniture retailer which is principally based in Paris but has branches in other countries, including London. The Claimant was employed at the London branch. She initially worked for the Respondent as a Design Consultant between 2004 and 2016. She was then employed as a Senior Sales/Design Consultant from 3rd September 2017 until her resignation.[12]The Claimant’s employment contract states that her normal hours of work are 32 hours per week, to be worked flexibly over four days between 9am and 5pm, Monday to Saturday. The Claimant accepted that there would be occasional exceptions to these hours, such as when she travelled to the Paris office. She otherwise performed her role within these hours. At the liability hearing, I accepted the Claimant’s argument that the scope of the contract did not entitle the Respondent to vary what is described as the normal hours the Claimant must work (9am – 5pm) unilaterally, notwithstanding that it could (as a matter of contract) expect some flexibility from time to time for operational requirements.[13]In or around February 2023, the Claimant had notified the Showroom Manager in London, Laura Marti de Deigo, that she had disabilities and a severe heart and vein condition. The Claimant’s disabilities are:a. Pelvic congestion syndrome;b. Leg varicosities;c. A metal coil in the Claimant’s right ventricle of her heart; andd. Hypothyroidism.[14]On 11th July 2023, the Claimant was informed by Mr Minvielle, of the Respondent (based in Paris), that her working hours were to change to 10am to 6pm from 1st August 2023. In response, the Claimant emailed Mr Minvielle on 26th July 2023 confirming that she could not agree to the variation because: …my current working hours have been crucial in helping me cope with my health conditions, and I am concerned that this change would significantly hinder my ability to manage my health effectively… …my current hours are very important to me for health reasons as I suffer from a heart condition and pelvic vein condition of which I had informed Laura a few months ago, and a thyroid condition. These conditions have a wide range of impacts but most relevant to this request is that they result in periodic tiredness and lethargy, which can vary in intensity and frequency. My current work hours provide me with the necessary rest and recuperation time, enabling me to perform at my best during work hours. Fixed hours that are later in the day, as proposed in the variation, would hinder my capacity to cope with my health-related limitations, ultimately harming my health, productivity, and overall wellbeing. My current working hours and flexibility have enabled me to manage the conditions without needing to request adjustments or time off…”[15]Mr Minvielle replied on 27th July 2023 saying: I hope you’re well and that you’re having a good week in London. Thank you for your reply and I understand that health is essential. Unfortunately I’m obligated to change your timetable in accordance with my first email…[16]The Claimant did not accept the variation, notwithstanding that she undertook a trial arrangement for the new hours in August 2023. She was asked to sign a document on 4th August 2023 to confirm this variation but refused to do so. On 25th August 2023, the Claimant informed Mr Minvielle that she would not agree to the variation (having undertaken the short trial of the new hours). She was invited to a meeting to discuss the variation, to take place on 22nd September 2023. The Claimant confirmed her agreement to attend on this date and Mr Minvielle replied on 8th September 2023 to thank the Claimant for having changed her hours to the new hours (10am – 6pm). The Claimant responded on 15th September 2023 to make clear that she was working to the terms of her contract “as signed” and that the adjustment in hours was simply flexibility that she was offering the Respondent.[17]Mr Minvielle then replied to thank the Claimant and said that “Our formal meeting on Friday 22nd is therefore no longer necessary”. Mr Minvielle did invite the Claimant to speak to him if she wished to do so.[18]The Claimant again raised her concern regarding the variation of hours and her health to Ms Marti de Deigo on 6th November 2023 and again a week later. She needed to move back to her 9am – 5pm pattern to better protect her health. I found at the liability hearing that this amounted to a request by the Claimant for a reasonable adjustment. The Respondent did not receive a reply to either email. Her concerns were not addressed and there had been no meeting in light of the cancellation by Mr Minvielle. She was effectively left to work flexible hours without any willingness on the part of the Respondent to engage with her request or her health reasons for returning to her contractual hours.[19]After consulting with ACAS, the Claimant submitted her resignation by email on 30th November 2023 (giving one month’s notice to 31st December 2023). The Claimant was then asked to attend a grievance meeting on 18th December 2023 (conducted by a third party). The Claimant accepted that she was given a right to be accompanied at this meeting but, after requests were made for the draft minutes to be revised, she did not receive a final copy.[20]I also found, at the liability hearing (for reasons given at that hearing), that:a. there was an offensive working environment (as described by the Claimant) owing to a failure to respond to complaints raised by the Claimant during 2023 (for example, there was no response to an email of 8th June 2023 regarding another employee interfering with the Claimant’s client and the rescheduling of a client event to the Claimant’s non-working day when it had been agreed that the event would run on her working day).b. There was an unequal distribution of work between the Claimant and other employees in the London office. There was more work allocated to the Junior Sales Consultant between April and May 2023. There was no explanation as to why the other employee received a favourable amount of work.[21]I found at the liability hearing that, by the beginning of November 2023, there was a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence in the employment contract by failing to address the Claimant’s concerns and unilaterally varying her contract without consultation. It may have been open to the Respondent to have decided that there was no alternative than to proceed with its proposal to vary the hours. However, with a wholesale failure to fully engage with the Claimant (with no reply after 6th November 2023), the Respondent stopped addressing its employee’s concerns (especially where the concern about the variation related directly to the Claimant’s health). The Claimant resigned in response to this failure to engage with her concerns and communicate with her.[22]The Claimant resigned promptly in response to the failure to engage with her email of 6th November 2023. The point at which it would have been reasonable for there to have been a response to the email by the Respondent would have been 27th November 2023 (21 days after the Claimant’s email of 6th November). The Claimant resigned three days later. I found in the circumstances that the claim of unfair dismissal was accordingly well founded and succeeded.[23]At the liability hearing, having had regard to the detailed contents of the Claimant’s second witness statement (which she confirmed to be true at the hearing) I found that the Claimant was disabled at the material time on the basis of her pelvic congestion syndrome (for which she had been diagnosed in 2014). The Respondent had knowledge of the Claimant’s pelvic congestion syndrome since it was disclosed to Ms Marti de Deigo in February 2023.[24]There was a provision, criterion or practice for the Claimant to work the varied hours of 10am to 6pm instead of 9am to 5pm. The Claimant requested that this was adjusted by her email to Ms Marti de Deigo dated 6th November 2023. I found that this provision, criterion or practice put the Claimant at a substantial disadvantage in relation to her work at the London office (having regard to her need to rest and the benefits of having an earlier start) compared to a nondisabled employee who would more likely be able to accommodate a shift in hours to 10am – 6pm.[25]There was therefore a duty on the Respondent to take reasonable steps to avoid the disadvantage to the Claimant. The request was a reasonable request (or at least an adjustment to not require the Claimant to work late would have been a reasonable alternative step which the Respondent could have taken). The Respondent did not lead any evidence or defend the case to prove why such an adjustment would be an unreasonable step to take.[26]The claim of a failure to make reasonable adjustments was found to be in time and succeeded accordingly. Findings and conclusions in respect of remedy Unfair dismissal Basic Award[27]It was agreed at the remedy hearing that the calculation of the Claimant’s basic award is: £5787. This is based on the applicable cap of £643 on a week’s gross pay (the Claimant’s weekly pay exceeding this sum) as at the Claimant’s effective date of termination (31st December 2023) multiplied by 6 years of complete service, multiplied by 1.5 because for all of these years the Claimant was aged over 41 years.[28]There were no submissions opposing this calculation by the Respondent. Compensatory Award[29]Section 123(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 provides that the amount of the award shall be: …such amount as the tribunal considers just and equitable in all the circumstances having regard to the loss sustained by the complainant in consequence of the dismissal in so far as that loss is attributable to action taken by the employer…[30]At section 123(4): In ascertaining the loss referred to in subsection (1) the tribunal shall apply the same rule concerning the duty of a person to mitigate his loss as applies to damages recoverable under the common law of England and Wales or (as the case may be) Scotland.[31]The object of the award is to compensate the Claimant and not to punish the Respondent or award ‘a bonus’ to the Claimant (Norton Tool Co Ltd v Tewson [1973] All ER 183).[32]There were no submissions by the Respondent that the compensatory award ought to be reduced for contributory conduct (section 123(6)). In my judgment, there were no facts found at the liability hearing which would have justified such a reduction in any event given the circumstances in which the Claimant made a request for an adjustment which was not dealt with by the Respondent.[33]The parties agreed at the hearing that the Claimant’s net weekly pay for the purposes of calculating the compensatory award was £720.26 for the relevant period. This figure includes the Claimant’s commission payments.[34]I therefore had to decide the number of weeks to award to the Claimant that is just and equitable in all the circumstances.[35]I accept the sworn evidence given by the Claimant. It was not substantially open to challenge since the Respondent did not defend the case but there was no challenge by way of submissions from the Respondent in any event. The Claimant has been searching for work during the course of 2024. She enrolled at the job centre and the staff there have been actively working with the Claimant to find other suitable employment. She has also completed some training courses and has registered with various job agencies. The Claimant, owing to her health and disability, has also been affected by her conditions during this year which has made finding other employment more challenging.[36]The Claimant has so far been unable to find other work. She is now waiting for two operations which may delay this a little further. She is exploring whether she may become a work coach. She has been applying for jobs with the DWP and has applied for other civil service positions. The Claimant told me that she hopes to commence new work at the beginning of the New Year.[37]In my judgment, the Claimant has mitigated her loss as far as reasonably possible, considering the impact of her health on her ability to do so. I am satisfied that, subject to any planned operations, she is (on her own evidence) likely to find suitable work in early 2025. Her loss continues up to the end of this calendar year. After that stage, it is more likely than not that she will find alternative and suitable work. In any event, I note that most of her enquiries for other work have centred on civil service positions and similar roles. Insofar as this has not proved fruitful in finding a new role, it is more likely than not that the Claimant will be able to find alternative work in the New Year if she broadens out the parameters of the type of work sought, especially given that the role she was performing for the Respondent was sales focused.[38]Accordingly, in my judgment, the just and equitable compensatory award in this case is to assess the Claimant’s loss up to the end of December 2024 only. Save for the last two weeks, this is all past loss up to the point of this judgment.[39]The calculation is therefore: 52 weeks x £720.26 which makes a net total loss of £37,453.52. This comprises 50 weeks to the date of this judgment (£36,013) and 2 weeks future loss to the end of December (£1,440.52).[40]In addition, the Claimant claims her loss of employer pension contributions during the same period. It was agreed that the employer pension contributions for the relevant period are calculated at £76.89 per week (based on an average over 2023). For the same loss period of 52 weeks, this amounts to £3,998.28.[41]The Respondent offered no submissions or comments on the number of weeks which should be used to assess the compensatory award.[42]The total compensatory award is therefore £41,451.80 (subject to grossing up for taxation purposes). ACAS Uplift[43]The Claimant also claims an uplift to her compensatory award because of a failure by the Respondent to address her grievance. The Claimant’s email of 6th November 2023 seeking an adjustment back to her regular working hours of 9am – 5pm and her email of resignation dated 30th November 2023 amounted to a grievance in writing and the Respondent treated the resignation email as a written grievance because it arranged a meeting to discuss the issues raised therein on 18th December 2023. However, the Respondent did not, in fact, deal with or respond to the grievance, despite having held a meeting. The Claimant was provided with draft minutes but no final copy with revisions and was not told of any outcome, offered any resolution nor given any response or feedback. The Respondent produced a report during this process but it was not shared with the Claimant.[44]Section 207A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 provides for an increase or a reduction to such an award to an employee where a relevant code of practice applies and there has been an unreasonable failure to comply (in this case on the part of the employer).[45]I conclude that there has been an unreasonable failure to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures because the Respondent wholly failed to decide on any appropriate action and did not communicate a decision to the Claimant and therefore gave the Claimant no opportunity or right of an appeal.[46]The Claimant claims a 10% uplift on her compensatory award. I consider that this is a just and equitable amount by which to increase the award, having regard to the actual amount by which such a percentage will increase the compensation. A meeting was held by the Respondent and so there was some compliance with the Code. However, a failure to deal with the issues and communicate effectively is sufficiently serious to warrant the level of uplift claimed.[47]The Respondent offered no submissions on an increase of 10% and did not, therefore, appear to oppose this level of increase in the circumstances.[48]The compensatory award is therefore increased by £4,145.18. Grossing up the compensatory award[49]The total compensatory award, as uplifted, is therefore £45,596.98.[50]The first £30,000 of this award will not be subject to taxation. However, the Claimant will need to account for tax and national insurance in respect of the amount over £30,000. It is therefore necessary for the tribunal to estimate the likely tax liability and add this to the award by grossing up so that the net amount in the Claimant’s hands is preserved (subject to any recoupment). The Claimant produced evidence at the remedy hearing that she is only in receipt of universal credit and has not worked since the termination of her employment in December 2023.[51]Accordingly, in the current tax year, the income liability will be £15,596.98. £12,570 of this figure will benefit from the personal allowance with the remainder being subject to 20% income tax. Using the gov.uk income tax calculator for this figure, the estimated tax liability is £603.60 (20% of £3,026.98 liability) and £242.16 for national insurance.[52]It follows that £845.76 must be added to this compensatory award by way of grossing up so as to ensure that the Claimant retains the benefit of the net award. The Claimant will be responsible for accounting for the tax liability to HMRC accordingly (and should seek tax advice if necessary).[53]The grossed-up award is therefore: £46,442.74. Statutory cap[54]The compensatory award is then subject to the statutory cap as imposed by section 124 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Since the reason for the dismissal was the fundamental breach of the implied term of trust and confidence by the Respondent, this is not a discriminatory dismissal and, accordingly, the compensation for lost pay has been claimed and awarded under unfair dismissal legislation, not the Equality Act 2010. Accordingly, the cap will apply subject to the applicable limits.[55]In this case, the question is what is a sum of 52 weeks’ gross pay (as that will operate as the relevant limit)? This calculation can include contractual commission which, in the Claimant’s case, is set out in the terms of her employment contract.[56]The Claimant has set out on her claim form (and it has not been contradicted in any way) that her annual salary was £41,040 and her yearly commission payment was £9339.41. Insofar as this represented a recent period of commission receipts, I am satisfied that it reflects the Claimant’s annual gross income prior to termination. Accordingly, the applicable cap in this case is £50,379.41. Since the grossed-up award adds up to a sum below this amount, the cap does not need to be applied. Recoupment[57]The Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996 apply to this judgment in respect of the compensatory award for unfair dismissal (only) because the Claimant has been in receipt of universal credit during the course of 2024.[58]The prescribed element for these purposes is £36,013 being the award for loss of pay up to the date of this judgment. The prescribed element does not include the award for loss of pension or future loss.[59]The prescribed period is from 31st December 2023 to 12th December 2024, being the date of the remedy judgment. Disability discrimination[60]The only remedy in respect of this claim is for an award for injury to feelings in respect of the failure to make reasonable adjustments. The Claimant provided a personal statement by an email dated 11th October 2024 which she confirmed in her sworn oral evidence.[61]An award of injury to feelings is designed to compensate the Claimant for the anger, distress and upset caused by the unlawful treatment. It is not a punitive award. The tribunal’s focus in assessing the amount is on the injury to the Claimant, not the gravity of the acts of the Respondent.[62]As confirmed by the EAT in Prison Service v Johnson [1997] IRLR 162 [27]:a. The award is compensatory and should be just to both parties. Feelings of indignation at the Respondent’s conduct should not be allowed to inflate the award;b. Awards should not be too low (as this would diminish respect for the policy of anti-discrimination legislation) but they must also be restrained;c. Awards should bear some general similarity to personal injury cases;d. Tribunals should consider the value in everyday life of the sum in mind, by reference to purchasing power or earnings;e. Tribunals should bear in mind the need for public respect for the level of awards made.[63]The Employment Tribunal’s Presidential Guidance on tribunal awards for injury to feelings (seventh addendum for claims from 6th April 2024) also provides guidance on injury to feelings awards and the applicable Vento v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police bands. These are:a. Lower band: £1,200 to £11,700 (less serious cases);b. Middle band: £11,700 to £35,200 (cases not meriting an award in the upper band);c. Upper band: £35,200 to £58,700 (most serious cases).[64]I accept the Claimant’s evidence (which was not challenged) that the failure to deal with and respond to the Claimant’s request to move her back to her contractual hours in light of her health (for which there was no evidence of any reason for not doing so) has caused the Claimant very considerable stress, worry, lack of sleep and anxiety in her capacity as a single parent. The Claimant made more than one attempt to engage the Respondent to support her with the serious impact on her health that a unilateral variation to her contract would entail. She was flexible and worked the new hours initially whilst maintaining her clear position that the new hours ought to be adjusted in light of the disadvantage to her as a disabled person. The Claimant and her concerns were effectively ignored by the Respondent. She was, in the circumstances, entitled to have been upset and distressed by the fact that the Respondent did not appear to take her health and its relevance to the proposed variation seriously.[65]This was one incident of discrimination in respect of a failure to adjust the Claimant’s hours in light of her health. She has been compensated separately for the constructive unfair dismissal in respect of a failure to engage with her and in respect of her grievance. Accordingly, I take that into account so as not to allow the Claimant to double recover in her compensation. Having regard to the injury to her feelings, as described above, and these factors affecting the overall value of the award, I conclude that this a case which merits an award in the mid-range of the lower band.[66]In my judgment, in all the circumstances, the Claimant is compensated for her injury to feelings in this case by an award of £6,500.[67]The Claimant is also entitled to interest at 8% on this award from the date of the act complained of. This was found to be 27th November 2023 when the Respondent omitted to deal with or respond to the request for an adjustment made on 6th November 2023. This period is 382 days to the date of this judgment.[68]The total interest accrued on the injury to feelings award is therefore £544.22. The Claimant’s breach of contract claim[69]This claim proceeds as a claim for monies owing in breach of contract and, accordingly, the claim is in time since the relevant date when time began to run was the effective date of termination of employment (like the unfair dismissal claim). This was explained and discussed during the hearing and the claim was clarified to proceed on this basis at the liability hearing in September.[70]During the course of the hearing, the Respondent conceded liability to pay the Claimant the sum of £24.66 towards her working on a Saturday (22nd July 2023) which had not been paid to her at the date of termination of her employment.[71]The Respondent also conceded liability to pay the Claimant £261.83 outstanding on termination in respect of the unpaid element of a commission payment which had been made in August 2023.[72]These amounts will need to be paid by the Respondent, subject to any relevant deductions for taxation.
Conclusion
[73]It follows that the Respondent must pay the Claimant the following amounts:a.£5787, basic awardb.£46,442.74, grossed up compensatory award (subject to the recoupment provisions, as set out in the judgment above)c.£6,500, injury to feelingsd.£544.22, interest on the injury to feelings awarde.£286.49, arrears of pay and commission (subject to deduction for tax and NI as applicable).