Mr Philip Mottershead v Harrison Brothers (Furniture) Ltd (in administration): 2424110/2017
JUDGMENT
[1]The second respondent is added as a party to these proceedings in terms of Rule 34 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, their not being included being an oversight following the case management preliminary hearing heard on 25 June 2018 and the Note thereof (at paragraph 4) making it clear that the second respondent could be liable for the remedy claimed.[2]The submission by the first respondent that the claims should not be enforced by reason of public policy is rejected, there being no relevant illegality.[3]The claimant was unfairly dismissed and is not awarded a basic award (as he received a redundancy payment) but is awarded a compensatory award in the sum of £5,017.44 (comprising wage loss of £4,567.44 and £450 in respect of loss of statutory rights), which is payable by the first respondent to the claimant.[4]The first respondent shall pay the claimant the net sum of £99.56, being the shortfall of wages due to the claimant, an unlawful deduction of the claimant’s wages in terms of section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. 1 of 4[5]The Tribunal declares that the first respondent failed to comply with its duty in terms of regulation 13 of the Transfer of Undertaking (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (to elect, inform and consult appropriate representatives of affected employees, namely those engaged by the first respondent to carry out office functions, of which the claimant was a part) and finds that the first respondent and second respondent are jointly and severally liable to pay the claimant the sum of 13 week’s pay, namely £6,500.[6]The Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996 do not apply to any of these awards.