Mr Z Valimulla v Al-Khair Foundation: 2308368/2020
JUDGMENT
It is the Judgment of the Tribunal that the claimant’s claim of unfair dismissal fails and is dismissed.REASONS
Conclusions
[1]The claimant presented a claim of unfair dismissal on 18/12/2020. The respondent claims the dismissal was for the fair reason of redundancy.Introduction
[2]The respondent is a faith-based charity which provides emergency relief and development world-wide, to impoverished areas.[3]The Tribunal heard evidence from the claimant. For the respondent it heard from Mr Musa (the claimant’s line manager), Mr Khan (Mr Musa’s line manager) and Ms Rudman of HR. The witnesses were all very clear that there was no personal animosity between them and they were courteous towards each other. The respondent’s witnesses in particular were candid, for example, Mr Khan and Mr Musa agreed they had had issues.[4]Another point should be noted which was that there were no issue at all with the claimant’s performance and indeed, the respondent offered to provide a reference for the claimant should one be required in future.[5]The claim was listed for one day. The evidence concluded after 1pm. Mr Williams made a very short and succinct closing submission and the claimant provided a written submission. There was an agreed bundle of 131-pages.[6]The claimant had provided sound files of various conversations, which he had recorded. The files lasted for over two-and-a-half hours, although the claimant identified the relevant parts of the file. The claimant did not make an express application for the files to be heard and the Tribunal declined to do so. Not least for the reason that there was no transcript of the files provided and the respondent had not had an opportunity to comment upon any transcript.List of Issues
[7]The claimant takes issue with whether or not the redundancy was genuine. If not and if the redundancy was a sham, the respondent would not be able to show a fair reason for the termination of his employment. He also takes issue with the redundancy process which the respondent followed and says the procedure was so flawed as to render the dismissal unfair.Findings of fact
[8]The claimant started to work for the respondent on 5/2/2018 and he was employed as a Masjid Liaison Officer, latterly at the respondent’s Bolton branch. Due to his domestic responsibilities, the claimant worked from home. He was the only member of staff who did so.[9]The respondent had undergone a restructure in 2019 and the claimant’s role remained in the organisation.[10]There was a dispute between Mr Khan and Mr Musa and they both agreed this was the case. In essence, Mr Khan replaced Mr Musa with the result that Mr Musa was demoted. The claimant said that he was asked to become involved in this dispute and he declined to do so. He said that led to him being made redundant in October 2020. As Mr Khan pointed out, any dispute would have affected other staff, not just the claimant. The Tribunal finds that any dispute had nothing to do with the claimant’s role being made redundant. It was the intervening event of the Covid-19 pandemic which led to the redundancy.Relevant Law
[11]The claimant’s role was fundraising in the community and he worked mainly in public and private schools. The UK first went into lockdown on 23/3/2020, the claimant was subsequently ‘furloughed’ under the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (CJRS) on 23/4/2020. The claimant lived with his parents who were classed as ‘vulnerable’ (one of the reasons he worked from home was to care for his parents).[12]The respondent reassessed its business model during the period the claimant was on the CJRS. It was disappointing as this followed the restructure in 2019 and would clearly cause further anxiety for the staff. The senior management team (SMT) and the CEO had discussions during August 2020 and this led to the CEO announcing a proposed restructure of the organisation and notice that the was a potential risk of redundancy on 3/9/2020 (page 44). Furthermore, the respondent pointed out the claimant was furloughed for over four months as it had no work for him to do.[13]Although he was on notice of redundancy, as far as the claimant was concerned, when schools re-opened in September 2020, he was able to return to work and to resume fundraising. The respondent had a different view. The respondent’s position was that even if for example, Mosques were open, they were only open for prayer and not for other activities, such as fundraising. The respondent also took the view that in these desperate times, it was unlikely that donations would be made as people did not know what the future held. The respondent also changed direction (Mr Khan said and it is accepted that the respondent had to change ‘overnight’) and it became an aid agency. The future was extremely uncertain in respect of what would happen, the after-effects of the pandemic and in particular what would happen to the UK economy.[14]The claimant had three redundancy consultation meetings on: 9/9/2020; 16/9/2020; and 23/9/2020. The outcome, communicated to him on the 2/10/2020 was that his contract would be terminated with effect from 31/10/2020. The claimant was offered an appeal against the decision to dismiss, which he declined to exercise.[15]There are some difficulties in attempting to recreate the atmosphere in September/October 2020. It should be remembered that the CJRS was originally due to end in May and then in June. On 29/5/2020 the Chancellor announced that it would be extended to the 31/10/2020. In addition, employers then had to pay national insurance and pension contributions from August and contribute 10% of pay from September and 20% from October. Throughout September 2020 the Government ruled out any further extension of the CJRS. On the 31/10/2020 it was announced there would be a second lockdown to start on the 5/11/2020 and that the CJRS would be extended until the end of November. It was only on 5/11/2020 that the Chancellor retrospectively extended the scheme to March 2021. There was a provision that any employee made redundant after the 23/9/2020 could be reinstated and put back onto the CJRS. The situation was unpredictable and volatile. Statements made were contradicted. The Tribunal finds that not only was the financial position of a charity such as this respondent precarious, but that there was no certainty at all about what would happen in the future.[16]Ms Rudman said there was a concern that if redundancies were made much later, that any redundant staff would be disadvantaged as by that point in time, more employers would have shed staff and so finding an alternative role would be more difficult.[17]The claimant criticised the consultation process and said that it was not effective consultation. In particular, the claimant criticised Mr Khan for his comments in the first consultation meeting in which he told the claimant it had been decided his role would ‘disappear’. It is accepted that this was loose or sloppy language. It did appear to the claimant that the decision had already been taken and that the redundancy was a fait accompli. Ms Rudman attempted to mitigate this impression by adding that it was proposed that the role would be deleted.[18]Out of 14 proposed redundant roles, nine in the end resulted in the role being deleted. Furthermore, there was a proposal to close the Leicester branch, due however to representations made, that decision was reversed. On balance, the Tribunal finds that the respondent’s position was not entrenched and it was open to consider representations made during the consultation process. If there is a proposal to delete a post, then of course the respondent must have in its mind that it could manage without position. The proposal was that the role of Masjid Liaison Officer would be delete.[19]The claimant takes issue with the selection criteria and selection pool. There was no selection criteria. The Tribunal was told the claimant’s role was unique and so he was in a self-selecting pool of one. Whilst that may have been the case, those factors could have been made expressly clearer to the claimant in the course of the process.[20]In considering alternatives to redundancy, the claimant put forward a business case as to how his role could continue. The Tribunal finds the respondent did consider the claimant’s proposal, even if ultimately it did not accept it.[21]In respect of alternative work, there were two vacancies in Croydon. The claimant also referred to Zaid Musa being offered work after his employment had ended. Mr Zaid Musa was a zero hours worker, who had worked for the respondent for ‘years’ and who came in on an as required basis. Furthermore, he worked in the warehouse. In light of that, the Tribunal finds that the vacancies which existed at the time the claimant was going through the redundancy process were discussed and rejected due to the location.[22]The claimant also criticises the respondent in that he was treated inconsistently with other members of staff. It is not clear what the issue he takes is as he has not identified the other staff. In any event and taking the claimant’s claim at its highest, even if there was a difference in treatment, the claimant’s role was unique, with the result that accounted for any difference in treatment.The Law
[23]Section 94 of the Employment Rights Act (“ERA”) states that an employee has the right not to be unfairly dismissed by his employer.[24]Section 98 ERA states:(1) In determining for the purposes of this Part whether the dismissal of an employee is fair or unfair, it is for the employer to show— (a) the reason (or, if more than one, the principal reason) for the dismissal, and (b) that it is either a reason falling within subsection (2) or some other substantial reason of a kind such as to justify the dismissal of an employee holding the position which the employee held(2) A reason falls within this subsection if it— (a) relates to the capability or qualifications of the employee for performing work of the kind which he was employed by the employer to do, (b) relates to the conduct of the employee, (c) is that the employee was redundant, or (d) is that the employee could not continue to work in the position which he held without contravention (either on his part or on that of his employer) of a duty or restriction imposed by or under an enactment. …(3) Where the employer has fulfilled the requirements of subsection (1), the determination of the question whether the dismissal is fair or unfair (having regard to the reason shown by the employer)— (a) depends on whether in the circumstances (including the size and administrative resources of the employer’s undertaking) the employer acted reasonably or unreasonably in treating it as a sufficient reason for dismissing the employee, and (b) shall be determined in accordance with equity and the substantial merits of the case [Tribunal’s emphasis][25]Section 139 ERA states: (1) For the purposes of this Act an employee who is dismissed shall be taken to be dismissed by reason of redundancy if the dismissal is wholly or mainly attributable to— (a) the fact that his employer has ceased or intends to cease— (i) to carry on the business for the purposes of which the employee was employed by him, or (ii) to carry on that business in the place where the employee was so employed, or (b) the fact that the requirements of that business— (i) for employees to carry out work of a particular kind, or (ii) for employees to carry out work of a particular kind in the place where the employee was employed by the employer, have ceased or diminished or are expected to cease or diminish.[26]The ERA requires the claimant to prove that he has been dismissed. The burden then shifts to the employer to prove the reason for the dismissal. If the respondent succeeds in showing a potentially fair reason for dismissal, there is a neutral burden for the purposes of determining whether or not the dismissal was fair.[27]If the respondent fails to show a potentially fair reason for a dismissal it is unfair. If a potentially fair reason is shown, the general test of fairness in section 98(4) must be applied. The helpful test is the range or band of reasonable responses, a test which originated in the misconduct case of British Home Stores v Burchell [1980] ICR 303, but which has been subsequently approved in a number of decisions of the Court of Appeal. An approach based on the ‘Burchell test’ can be useful in cases other than conduct cases, albeit that the focus must always be on the statutory wording.[28]The manner in which the employer handled the dismissal is important in considering whether the respondent acted reasonably in all of the circumstances in treating that reason as a sufficient reason for dismissing the claimant. A Tribunal will therefore be keen to find out that the process which led to the claimant’s dismissal was affected in an appropriate way, i.e., within the range of reasonable responses applicable to an employer of the size of the respondent with such administrative resources available.[29]It is important that in carrying out this exercise the Tribunal must not substitute its own decision for that of the employer.[30]Williams v Compair Maxam Ltd 1982 ICR 156 EAT gave guidelines (and they are only guidelines) that a reasonable employer might be expected to follow in making redundancy dismissals. In determining the question of reasonableness it was not for the Tribunal to impose its standards and decide whether the respondent should have behaved differently. The Tribunal should ask whether ‘the dismissal lay within the range of conduct which a reasonable employer could have adopted’.[31]The factors suggested that a reasonable respondent might be expected to consider were: whether employees were warned and consulted about the redundancy whether, if there was a union, the union’s view was sought whether the selection criteria were objectively chosen and fairly applied whether any alternative work was available.[32]In respect of consultation, the Tribunal was referred to R v British Coal Corporation 1994 IRLR 72, where fair consultation means consultation when the proposals are still at the formative stage, adequate information, adequate time in which to respond, and conscientious consideration by an authority of the response. Or, that consultation ‘involves giving the body consulted a fair and proper opportunity to understand fully the matters about which it is being consulted, and to express its views on those subjects, with the consultor thereafter considering those views properly and genuinely’.Conclusions
[33]This employer, like many others during the pandemic was in an invidious position. It had to change its working model overnight. It was clear from the evidence given that the staff involved in the redundancy process were compassionate and fully appreciated the impact of the difficult decisions they had to take. After a re-organisation in 2019, there was in effect a further ‘cull’ in 2020. The pandemic and the impact of it could not be predicted and from March 2020 there was immeasurable uncertainty.[34]Unlike all of the other staff, the claimant was not branch based and even though he worked from home, he could not continue in his role during lockdown and he was placed on the CJRS. The respondent changed its business model and during the summer of 2020, it came to the conclusion that the role the claimant performed could be deleted.[35]The Tribunal accepts the redundancy was genuine. Due to events outside of either party’s control, it was no longer possible for the role of Masjid Liaison Officer to operate by fundraising in the community. At the time, it appeared to the respondent (and it was reasonable for it to take that view) that it was impossible to say when, if ever, the role could continue in the future as it had in the past.[36]The respondent was in a position akin to an employer whose factory has been destroyed in a fire and who decides to make its staff redundant. The requirement for the work of the particular kind the claimant performed had ceased or diminished. Furthermore, it was reasonable to conclude it was expected to cease or diminish. The respondent could see no prospect of a return to community fundraising in the manner the claimant had previously performed resuming; and that was a reasonable view.[37]The claimant criticises the respondent for not allowing him to continue on the CJRS. By September 2020 the terms of the CJRS had changed and there was now a cost to an employer. In addition, there were repeated statements made that the Scheme would end on 31/10/2020. Had the respondent allowed the claimant to continue on the CJRS and had as expected, the scheme ended on 31/10/2020, what was the respondent to do then? The claimant’s role no longer existed through no fault of either the claimant or the respondent. A redundancy situation would still have existed.[38]The Tribunal makes no conclusion on the respondent re-hiring the claimant further to the announcement made on 5/11/2020 when the country was in a second lockdown, as the claimant did not take this point.[39]Mr Khan did have an open mind in respect of the proposals the claimant made and the consultation was effective. The process does not have to be perfect and overall, the process was reasonable and therefore ultimately it was fair. It is noticeable that the claimant criticises both the respondent’s process and the genuineness of the dismissal, yet he did not appeal against the decision to dismiss him. In particular, if the process is criticised, then it would be logical to have appealed to the CEO. The claimant also had the option of raising a grievance in accordance with his contract of employment and he did not exercise that option.[40]This was a small employer with 40 full-time staff. It did not have unlimited resources. Had the claimant been retained, there was a cost to the respondent, even under the CJRS. The decisions taken and the process followed which resulted in the claimant’s employment being terminated were within the range of reasonable responses which an employer could take, particularly during the pandemic.[41]For those reasons, the Tribunal finds the dismissal was fair by reason of redundancy and the claimant’s claim fails and is dismissed. 22nd September 2021 REMEDY JUDGMENT The judgment of the Tribunal is that the Respondent is ordered to pay the Claimant the sum of £16,789.52 which is calculated as follows:[1]Compensatory award for unfair dismissal in respect of lost earnings for a year following dismissal: £16,289.52[2]Loss of statutory rights: £500 The Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996 apply to this award – see attached Annex. For the purposes of the Recoupment Regulations: 1. the total award is £16,789.52 2. the “Prescribed Element” is £16,289.52 3. the “Prescribed Period” is 31 October 2020 to 30 October 2021 4. the amount by which the monetary award exceeds the Prescribed Element is £500 The £500 sum payable directly to the Claimant (not subject to recoupment) is now payable and must be made to the Claimant within 28 days of the date of this Judgment.[1]I gave the above Judgment on the day of the hearing, together with oral reasons. At the hearing the Respondent requested written reasons under Rule 62 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. My reasons were as follows. Introduction[2]The Claimant, Mr Valimulla, was employed by the Respondent, Al Khair Foundation, from 5 February 2018 until 31 October 2020.[3]The Claimant was dismissed on the grounds of redundancy. At the time of his dismissal, the Claimant’s job title was “National Masjid Liaison Officer” (MLO).[4]The Respondent is a religious charity which provides emergency relief and development to impoverished areas.[5]The Claimant presented a claim of unfair dismissal on 18 February 2020. This was heard by Employment Judge Wright on 22 September 2021 and the Claimant lost his claim. The Claimant appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal. This was heard by HHJ Tucker on 10 October 2023 and the Claimant was successful, in particular in relation to the question of whether there had been an adequate pooling exercise prior to redundancy.[6]The case was remitted to the Employment Tribunal to undertake a full analysis of the appropriate ‘Polkey’ reduction to any compensatory award. List of Issues[7]At a Preliminary Hearing on 8 February 2024, the parties agreed that the List of Issues for today’s Remedy Hearing was as follows. Compensatory award 1. What financial losses were sustained by the Claimant in consequence of the dismissal, insofar as that loss was caused by the Respondent? 2. Should the compensatory award be reduced for any failure by the Claimant to mitigate his loss, and if so, by how much? 3. Should a ‘Polkey’ deduction be made to reflect the chance that the claimant would have been dismissed in any event had the Respondent acted fairly? How much should be deducted? In particular, the tribunal will consider. a. What was a fair procedure likely to have been? i. Would the Claimant likely have been(i) pooled together with the other Masjid Liaison Officers,(ii) placed in a pool of his own, or(iii) in some other selection pool? ii. How long would a fair consultation procedure have taken? 4. What was the outcome of a fair redundancy procedure likely to have been? What was the percentage chance that a fair procedure would still have resulted in the Claimant’s dismissal? 5. Alternatively, if a fair procedure had been adopted, would this have affected when the Claimant would have been dismissed? Recoupment 6. Given that the Claimant was awarded Universal Credit, a recoupable benefit following his dismissal, what is (i) the amount of the prescribed element, (ii) to what period is that attributable, and (iii) to what extent does the monetary award exceed the prescribed element? Procedure, documents and evidence heard[8]The parties submitted the following documents as evidence:a. A bundle of documents of 131 pagesb. A supplementary bundle of 87 pagesc. A witness statement from the Claimant dated 3 May 2024d. A witness statement from Mr Musa from the Respondent dated 3 May 2024e. A Schedule of Loss each[9]I heard oral evidence from Mr Musa for the Respondent and from the Claimant.[10]I have carefully considered the documentary evidence that I was referred to during the hearing, together with the parties’ oral evidence and written closing submissions. Relevant Law[11]Section 123(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 provides: a. “the amount of the compensatory 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.”[12]I have also relied up on the principles applicable to assessing compensation where a Polkey reduction is being considered, as set out in Software 2000 Limited v Andrews & Ors [2007] ICR 825 at [54]:a. “In assessing compensation the task of the Tribunal is to assess the loss flowing from the dismissal, using its common sense, experience and sense of justice. ...b. The Tribunal must direct itself properly. It must recognise that it should have regard to any material and reliable evidence which might assist it in fixing just compensation, even if there are limits to the extent to which it can confidently predict what might have been; and it must appreciate that a degree of uncertainty is an inevitable feature of the exercise. The mere fact that an element of speculation is involved is not a reason for refusing to have regard to the evidence.” Finding of Fact andConclusions
[13]The parties accept that the basic award has been extinguished by payments already made to the Claimant. I therefore need only assess the compensatory award.[14]The compensatory award is the amount I consider just and equitable having regard to the loss sustained by the Claimant in consequence of the dismissal and which is attributable to the actions of the Respondent.[15]This award is to fully compensate the Claimant as if he had not been unfairly dismissed, but not to award a bonus or to punish the Respondent. Issue 1 - What financial losses were sustained by the Claimant in consequence of the dismissal, insofar as that loss was caused by the Respondent?[16]I accept the Claimant’s evidence that he has not had equivalent income to that which he received from the Respondent from the date of his dismissal until 1 July 2022. He did admit that he was in receipt of benefits and had done occasional exam invigilator work during that period, but that the latter was only during exam time and was on a part-time basis.[17]He has therefore claimed 86 weeks of lost earning from his dismissal (31 October 2020) until his full-time carer role began on 1 July 2022. Whilst I accept these losses as being accurate, I do not accept that they are entirely caused by the Respondent. This goes to a need to mitigate loss on which I will now explain my findings. Issue 2 - Should the compensatory award be reduced for any failure by the Claimant to mitigate his loss, and if so, by how much?[18]As for the mitigation of loss, I find that the Claimant was initially not able to find alternative employment due to health reasons, for the 16 week period from the date of his dismissal (31 October 2020) until 3 March 2021. He had provided evidence of Fit Notes from his GP showing that he was unable to work during that time due to “acute stress reaction.” I accept the Claimant’s evidence that this was due to the stress of having been made redundant. I conclude that this period of loss was attributable to the Claimant’s unfair dismissal caused by the Respondent.[19]I have then considered the period after that initial 16 weeks i.e. from 3 March 2021 onwards. The Claimant provided evidence of job applications he had made in March 2022 but, when questioned about the period from March 2021 (when the Fit Notes expired) until the March 2022 applications, it was not clear to me what the Claimant had been doing. Although I acknowledge that the burden of proof is on the Respondent as regards mitigation of loss, I am permitted to look at all the evidence before me in the round. I find it telling that the Claimant has provided evidence of mitigation for the period from dismissal to March 2021 and from March 2022 to July 2022, but nothing as regards mitigation for the one year period in between.[20]The Claimant gave evidence that he was depressed in that period. However, he conceded that he did not have a medical diagnosis of that condition. His only other justification was that he had felt stressed about his original Employment Tribunal claim (which was heard on 22 September 2021) and he had been busy dealing with that case, the reconsideration application and the appeal. However, I do not consider that the impact of having to deal with Tribunal proceedings is a good enough reason to justify not seeking and finding alternative employment for a one year period. The vast majority of Employment Tribunal claimants can (and do) pursue Tribunal proceedings whilst also searching for, or being in, work.[21]I accept the Claimant’s evidence that it was difficult to find alternative work in the same sector and location, partly because of the stigma of having been made redundant. However, I do not think that reasoning justifies a claim for lost earnings, all attributable to the Respondent, of 86 weeks. That would not be just nor equitable.[22]Although I also appreciate that the Claimant enjoyed his job and would have liked to have found another role in the same sector, it is my conclusion that he could (and should) have been able to find alternative employment in a different sector paying a comparable salary of around £25,000 within a year of his dismissal. I would not expect the Claimant to have changed careers immediately but doing so at some point within 52 weeks of dismissal (even taking account of the 16 weeks when he had an acute stress reaction) would have been reasonable.[23]I therefore consider it just and equitable to make an initial compensatory award to the Claimant of 52 weeks’ pay. Issue 3 - Should a Polkey deduction be made to reflect the chance that the Claimant would have been dismissed in any event had the respondent acted fairly?[24]On the question of pooling, it seems clear to me from the evidence of Mr Musa and the Claimant that there was considerable overlap between the MLO roles and other roles within the Respondent that were described by the parties as “fundraising roles”.[25]In addition, from the written evidence of the Claimant’s KPIs, it is clear that he had national, as well as local, responsibilities.[26]I did not find it credible for the Respondent to say that the Claimant’s role was unique and therefore incapable of consideration for redundancy with others. That appears to me to be too convenient an excuse for avoiding carrying out a proper pooling exercise.[27]For example, there were a number of overlaps between the work of the Claimant and the work of Mr Musa and Mr Atcha. The written evidence (and the oral evidence of the Claimant and Mr Musa) made it clear that there were a number of potential pools into which the Claimant could have been placed when considering redundancy selection.[28]He could have been in a pool with Mr Musa (both of whom were previously furloughed). Alternatively, the Claimant could have been in a pool of 3 with Mr Musa and Mr Atcha, all of whom I find had partly overlapping responsibilities in the Bolton branch. Alternatively, he could have been pooled with the other Assistant MLOs from all branches, some of whom the Claimant had been training. It was agreed by the parties in their evidence that that some MLOs may have been volunteers. However, I accept the Claimant’s evidence most were not. The ones that were employed would have been suitable for forming a national pool with the Claimant. In short, there was a good deal of overlap and interchangeability of roles, both locally and nationally. I do not find evidence that the Claimant’s role and responsibilities were so unique as to mean that he could not have been placed in a pool with comparable colleagues.[29]Aside from pooling for redundancy, there was also the question of whether a relocation was an option, for example to the Croydon branch. My finding from the evidence of the Claimant and Mr Musa is that this was not discussed with the Claimant. The Respondent simply made assumptions about the Claimant, based on his caring responsibilities for his parents, and his preference for home working, which meant that relocating was never explored with him. This is a further failing on the part of the Respondent by not considering alternatives to redundancy such as whether a role could be found in another branch.[30]In conclusion I find that a fair procedure was not followed because there were a number of relocation options that were not explored, as well as pooling options ranging from two people (the Claimant and Mr Musa) to around ten people (the Claimant, plus all of the other MLOs nationally). Issue 4 - What was the outcome of a fair redundancy procedure likely to have been? What was the percentage chance that a fair procedure would still have resulted in the Claimant’s dismissal?[31]This question is of course speculative in nature because no such pooling took place. However, in my view, on balance and taking an average of the potential pool sizes, I think there was a 25% chance that the Claimant would have been dismissed, even if he had been pooled correctly and a fair process followed. Issue 5 - Alternatively, if a fair procedure had been adopted, would this have affected when the Claimant would have been dismissed?[32]The Claimant’s redundancy consultation process with the Claimant was reasonably thorough. There were a series of meetings over a 23 day period. In my view, if a pooling exercise had taken place, it would most likely have also run to a similar timetable. I therefore do not conclude that a fair procedure (as regards pooling) would have affected when the Claimant would have been dismissed. Remedy calculation[33]Based on the above conclusions in relation to a 52 week period of loss attributable to the Respondent, and a 25% Polkey reduction, I agreed the following calculations for the compensatory award with the parties’ representatives:a. 52 weeks x £406.44 net weely pay = £21,134.88. The weekly net pay was calculated using an online calculator with the Claimant’s salary of £25,728 and his tax code of 1250L for the 2020/2021 tax year. The parties agreed that this produced a net weekly pay of £406.44.b. The loss of employer pension contributions was agreed at a rate of £11.24 x 52 weeks = £584.48.c. Combining the above two amounts gives a total of £21,719.36d. 25% of that total is £5,429.84, which needs to be deducted to take account of Polkey.e. £21,719.36 minus £5,429.84, gives a compensatory award of £16,289.52.f. I also award £500 for loss of the Claimant’s statutory rights.g. The total award is therefore £16,789.52. Recoupment[34]The Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996 apply to this award.a. the total award is £16,789.52b. the “Prescribed Element” is £16,289.52c. the “Prescribed Period” is 31 October 2020 to 30 October 2021.d. the amount by which the monetary award exceeds the Prescribed Element is £500.