Mr A Martin v PRS Electrical Contractors Ltd: 2410329/2018
JUDGMENT
[1]The complaint of “automatic” unfair dismissal contrary to section 101A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 is not well-founded and is dismissed.[2]The complaint of “ordinary” unfair dismissal contrary to section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 is well-founded, and it is conceded by the respondent that the claimant was unfairly dismissed.[3]In relation to remedy:(a) There shall be no deduction to the basic or compensatory award by reason of contributory fault.(b) There shall be an increase of 17.5% in the amount of compensation awarded by reason of the respondent’s unreasonable failure to follow the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures; and(c) Applying the principles in Polkey v A E Dayton Services Limited [1998] ICR 142, there shall be no reduction to the compensatory award made.[4]The recoupment provisions apply and the award of compensation is calculated as follows: Basic Award £978.00 Prescribed Element Loss of earnings from date of dismissal to date of hearing less earnings in mitigation £8,044.70 Plus 17.5% uplift in respect of the respondent’s failure to follow a relevant Code of Practice £1,407.82 £9,452.52 Non prescribed element Future loss of wages for four weeks from date of hearing £2,057.92 Loss of statutory rights £350.00 Plus an increase of 17.5% by reason of the respondent’s failure to follow a relevant Code of Practice £421.38 £2,829.30 Total monetary award made £13,259.82 Prescribed element £9.452.52 Period of prescribed element 1 March 2018 to 30 August 2018[5]The amount by which the monetary award exceeds the prescribed element is £3,807.30.