Mrs P Gray v Independent Financial Matters Ltd (in Creditors’ Voluntary Liquidation) and Anderson Maine Ltd (in Creditors’ Voluntary Liquidation): 2402756/2019
JUDGMENT
Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 – Rule 21 The time for presenting a response having expired , and no valid response having been presented by the first respondent within the prescribed time limit , it is the judgment of the tribunal that:[1]The claimant’s claim of unfair dismissal is well founded, and succeeds. She is entitled to compensation. The claimant was, however, dismissed by reason of redundancy , and is entitled to a redundancy payment. She is not, therefore entitled to any basic award.[2]The claimant’s entitlement to a redundancy payment is: 4.5 weeks at £307.69 per week £1384.61 which sum the first respondent is ordered to pay her.[3]The claimant is potentially entitled to a compensatory award. She was out of work for two weeks, and lost £548.86 net earnings. This would, however, be the first two weeks of her three week notice period. She was paid £411.63 by way of notice pay, that is a shortfall of £137.23. She also received JSA of £146.20 during this period, which would fall to be recouped from any award of compensation.[4]She seeks an award for loss of statutory rights, but as, given the insolvency of her employer, her employment would, had a fair consultation and procedure been followed, her employment would have ended in any event and it would not be just and equitable to make such an award. The Tribunal thus proposes to make no compensatory award.[5]The claimant was dismissed in breach of contract , and is entitled to notice pay. The claimant was entitled to three weeks notice, at a net rate of £274.43 per week, a total of £823.29 . She received, however, £411.63 by way of notice pay, and JSA of £146.20, which falls to be deducted. Her net loss is accordingly, £265.46, as damages for breach of contract, which sum the first respondent is ordered to pay her. This is net sum , and the respondent must account to HMRC for any tax and national insurance payments due upon it.[6]The claimant’s complaint of unauthorised deduction from wages is wellfounded and succeeds. The first respondent unlawfully deducted payments due to the claimant in respect of one week’s wages , in the sum of £274.43 net, in respect of the period 15 October to 22 October 2018.[7]The first respondent made further unauthorised deductions in respect two weeks worked in hand at the commencement of the claimant’s employment, which it failed to pay her on termination , a total of £548.86.[8]The first respondent is ordered to pay the claimant the said total sum of £823.29. This is a net sum, and the first respondent shall account to HMRC for the appropriate deductions for tax and national insurance.[9]The first respondent failed to consult with the claimant as a person who may be affected by proposals to dismiss, or measures taken in connection with the dismissal of, 20 or more employees, in breach of s.188(1) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.[10]The claimant is entitled to , and the Tribunal orders the first respondent to pay, a protective award. That award is an award of remuneration for the protected period of 90 days from 22 October 2018.[11]No awards are sought against the second respondent, and the claims against it are dismissed. NOTE[12]A protective award is a two stage process. The Tribunal at this stage makes no financial awards, but gives a judgment that the claimant is entitled to a protective award in the terms set out above. The claimant must then seek payment of her individual award from the respondent (or the Secretary of State) , quantifying the same.[13]Failure to pay, or any dispute as to the amount payable, then becomes a matter for a further separate claim under s.192 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 for payment of the award.[14]The Tribunal apologies to the claimant for the delay in the judgment being made in thIs case, occasioned by a combination of circumstances, including, most recently, the limitation upon the Tribunal’s administrative and judicial resources due to the effects of the Covid – 19 pandemic.