Mr A Beaumont v Roberts Solicitors Ltd: 2413399/2020
JUDGMENT
[1]The respondent breached the claimant’s contract of employment by failing to pay his full contractual remuneration during his notice period.[2]The claimant was unfairly dismissed, in that: 2.1. The sole or principal reason for the claimant’s dismissal was that he was redundant, but 2.2. The respondent acted unreasonably in treating that reason as a sufficient reason to dismiss the claimant.[3]If the tribunal had jurisdiction to consider the claimant’s complaint under section 48 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, it would find that the respondent subjected the claimant to a detriment by placing him on furlough leave on the ground that he made a protected disclosure.[4]The tribunal did not determine whether or not it had jurisdiction to consider the claimant’s complaint under that section.[5]The respondent did not harass the claimant in relation to Mrs Beaumont’s disability. Case Number: 2413399/2020 2 of 2[6]The respondent did not discriminate against the claimant because of Mrs Beaumont’s disability.[7]The respondent failed to pay the claimant for one week’s accrued annual leave on termination of employment.[8]Any compensatory award for unfair dismissal will be reduced to reflect the tribunal’s finding that, had the respondent not unfairly dismissed the claimant: 8.1. there is an 80% chance that the claimant would have remained in employment with the respondent; and 8.2. there is a corresponding 20% chance that he would have been fairly dismissed in any event on 4 July 2020. Employment Judge Horne 2 March 2022 SENT TO THE PARTIES ON 29 March 2022 FOR THE TRIBUNAL OFFICE This judgment follows a hearing on a remote video platform. Neither party objected to the format of the hearing. Reasons for the judgment were given orally at the hearing. Written reasons will not be provided unless a party makes a request in writing within 14 days of the date on which this judgment is sent to the parties. If written reasons are provided, they will be published on the tribunal’s online register which is visible to internet searches. Paragraph 1 of the judgment was made by consent. The decisions recorded in the remaining paragraphs were disputed. Case Number: 2413399/2020 1 of 6 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr A Beaumont Respondent: Roberts Solicitors Ltd Heard at: Liverpool On: 27 May 2022 Before: Employment Judge Horne Members: Ms L Atkinson Ms S Khan Representatives: For the claimant: In person For the respondent: Mr J Hurd, counsel REMEDY JUDGMENT Extent of agreement[1]Paragraphs 4 and 5 of this judgment were made with the parties’ consent.[2]The decision recorded at paragraph 10 was by a disputed decision by majority, with the employment judge dissenting.[3]Paragraphs 21 to 24 of this judgment are based on calculations made by the employment judge without the parties’ representations. Time for a party to apply for reconsideration of those paragraphs is extended to 28 days from the date when this judgment is sent to the parties.[4]All other decisions recorded in this judgment were disputed decisions upon which the tribunal was unanimous. Holiday pay[5]The tribunal having found that the respondent failed to pay the claimant for one week’s accrued annual leave on termination of employment, the respondent is ordered to pay the claimant the sum of £461.53, subject to such deductions as it is entitled to make for tax and national insurance. Case Number: 2413399/2020 2 of 6 Notice pay[6]As damages for breach of contract, the respondent is ordered to pay the claimant the sum of £849.67, subject to such deductions as it is entitled to make for tax and national insurance. Whistleblowing detriment complaint[7]In this judgment, “whistleblowing detriment complaint” means the complaint that the respondent subjected the claimant to a detriment by placing him on furlough leave on the ground that he had made a protected disclosure, contrary to section 47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996.[8]For the purposes of section 48(3)(a) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the last day of the statutory time limit for presenting the whistleblowing detriment complaint was 1 July 2020.[9]The provisions of section 207B of the Employment Rights Act 1996 had no effect on the statutory time limit for the whistleblowing detriment complaint, despite the claimant having provided prescribed information to ACAS on 1 June 2020, because: 9.1. No certificate was issued under section 18A(4) of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 during, or on the expiry of, the prescribed period following the provision of that information, so there was no “Day B” within the meaning of section 207B(2)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996; and 9.2. In any event, the provision of prescribed information to ACAS on 1 June 2020 was not about the same matter as the matter to which the whistleblowing detriment complaint related.[10]The majority of the tribunal is satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable for the claimant to present the whistleblowing detriment complaint on or before 1 July 2020.[11]The claimant presented the whistleblowing detriment complaint within such further period as the tribunal considers reasonable.[12]As a consequence of the tribunal’s conclusions at paragraph 10 and 11, the tribunal has jurisdiction to consider the whistleblowing detriment complaint.[13]As a consequence of the tribunal’s earlier judgment, the whistleblowing detriment complaint is well founded.[14]By way of remedy for the whistleblowing detriment complaint, the respondent is ordered to pay the claimant the sum of £7,000.00 as compensation for injury to feelings.[15]The claimant’s compensation is increased by 15% under section 207A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 because of the respondent’s unreasonable failure to comply with paragraph 33 of the ACAS Code of Practice 1 (Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures). The respondent is accordingly ordered to pay the claimant a further £1,050.00. Unfair dismissal[16]The respondent is ordered to pay the claimant a compensatory award for unfair dismissal in the sum of £6,733.10. Case Number: 2413399/2020 3 of 6[17]The compensatory award takes account of the tribunal’s earlier finding of a 20% chance of a fair dismissal in any event.[18]The compensatory award reflects the following disputed decisions by the tribunal: 18.1. The full period of financial loss claimed by the claimant was attributable to the actions of the respondent and a consequence of the dismissal. In particular, the termination of the claimant’s subsequent employment with JCI did not break the causal link between the dismissal from the respondent’s employment and the loss of earnings suffered by the claimant after his employment with JCI. 18.2. It is just and equitable to award the claimant the full period of past financial losses. In particular, the respondent has not proved that the claimant failed to take reasonable steps to mitigate his loss. Nor has the respondent proved that the taking of reasonable steps would have resulted in the claimant finding an earlier job or a better-paid job. 18.3. It is just and equitable to award the sum of £680.00 as compensation for future losses.[19]The compensatory award is increased by 15% under section 207A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 because of the respondent’s unreasonable failure to comply with paragraph 33 of the ACAS Code of Practice 1 (Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures). The respondent is accordingly ordered to pay the claimant a further £1,009.97.[20]The tribunal makes no basic award for unfair dismissal. Recoupment of benefit[21]The prescribed element of the award is £6,756.56.[22]The period to which the prescribed element is attributable is 4 July 2020 to 27 May 2022.[23]The total monetary award is £17,104.27.[24]The amount by which the total monetary award exceeds the prescribed element is £10,347.71.