Employment Judge A M BuchananIn person for claimantMr David Robinson-Young (instructed by Counsel) for respondentDate 3 March 2017
JUDGMENT
[1]It is the judgment of the Tribunal that the claimant was unfairly dismissed.[2]The respondent is ordered to pay to the claimant £18,219.04 by way of compensation for unfair dismissal. This comprises a basic award of £479.00 and a compensatory award of £17,740.04[3]The Employment Tribunals (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996 apply to this award and the information required by regulation 4(3) is as follows:-(a) the monetary award: £18,219.04.(b) the amount of the prescribed element if any: £11,836.24.(c) the date of the period to which the prescribed element is attributable: 3 June 2016-3 March 2017.[4]The respondent is ordered to pay to the claimant the fee paid by the claimant to issue these proceedings and the hearing fee totalling £1,200.[5]The total sum due from the respondent to the claimant is £19,419.04
REASONS
[1]By a claim form filed on 3 September 2016 the claimant brought a claim against the respondent for unfair dismissal. The claimant relied on an Early Conciliation Certificate on which Day A was shown as 20 July 2016 and Day B 9 August 2016.[2]By a response filed on 3 October 2016 the respondent denied all liability to the claimant.[3]The matter was listed for a one day hearing but on joint application of the parties the hearing was extended to three days.[4]Difficulties arose in respect of disclosure of documentation and a Telephone Private Preliminary Hearing was held before Employment Judge Garnon on 27 October 2016 at which various orders were made including an order that the claimant was permitted not to disclose documents relating to efforts to find alternative work prior to the hearing. Various orders which had been included in a letter from the Tribunal to the parties dated 5 September 2016 were varied. Witnesses[5]In the course of the hearing I heard from the following witnesses:- Respondent5.1 Alan Masterman (“AM”) - General Manager of the respondent company.5.2 Willem Hoogers (“WH”) – Finance Director of the respondent company.5.3 Catherine O’Sullivan (“CS”) – Head of HR of the respondent company.5.4 Cathryn Cook (“CC”) – Senior HR Consultant with RSM – an independent HR consultancy. In this Judgment, the above mentioned witnesses are referred to by the initials which appear above next to their respective names.[6]I had before me a bundle of documents extending to some 413 pages. I have made reference in the course of my deliberations to those documents to which I was referred in witness statements or during the course of the hearing. Any reference in this Judgment to a page number is a reference to the relevant page within the agreed bundle.
The issues
[7]At the start of the hearing issues were agreed with the parties and are now as follows:-7.1 What was the reason for the dismissal of the claimant and in particular:-7.1.1 Was the reason for dismissal that a redundancy situation existed?7.1.2 Was the redundancy situation a sham?7.1.3 Is the definition of redundancy in section 139 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (“the 1996 Act”) fulfilled?7.2 If the reason for dismissal is established by the respondent as being redundancy, then the questions posed by section 98(4) of the 1996 Act fall to be considered and so did the respondent act reasonably in treating redundancy as sufficient to dismiss the claimant and in particular:-7.2.1 Was it reasonable to include the claimant in a pool of one?7.2.2 Did the respondent apply its mind to the question set out in paragraph 7.2.1?7.2.3 Was it reasonable not to include the claimant in a pool with other employees and in particular was it reasonable not to apply the concept of bumping other employees?7.2.4 If so, did the respondent act reasonably in warning the claimant of the redundancy situation?7.2.5 If so, did the respondent reasonably consult with the claimant and in particular was any consultation process genuine or a process which was predetermined and so a sham?
Findings of fact
[8]Having considered the evidence both oral and documentary and in particular the way in which evidence was given to me and the cross-examination of the witnesses, I make the following findings of fact on the balance of probabilities:-8.1 The claimant was born on 12 May 1975. The claimant was made an offer of employment by the respondent company on 6 February 2013 as Senior Manager Smart Implementations – Europe (page 61-62). The role was expressed to be a newly created role whereby the claimant was to be technical lead in respect of the development and implementation of end to end solutions to meet the needs of the respondent’s customers. A contract was issued to the claimant on the same day (pages 63-83) in which (page 68) the claimant’s role was described as “Senior Manager Smart Implementations – Europe” and in which (page 70) the claimant’s normal place of work was described as being in Newcastle upon Tyne but with a “large and long term element of work abroad”... The claimant’s initial salary was £95,000 per annum gross which by the time of his dismissal had risen to £98,832 per annum gross. The claimant began his employment with the respondent on 17 June 2013.8.2 The respondent company is a company which is a leading “Smart” meter solution provider and its work includes designing, developing and manufacturing energy meters and metering systems. The respondent is the European arm of a much larger global company which has its headquarters in Singapore. The manufacturing base is in Asia but the respondent company itself deals with the European operation which includes the whole of Europe and the United Kingdom. The respondent company has a multi-million annual turnover and its administrative resources are large.8.3 At the time of the events which led to the dismissal of the claimant, the respondent company had offices in Edinburgh, Newcastle upon Tyne and Reading. The office in Edinburgh dealt with a gas metering programme which had run into some difficulty and indeed that office was closed as part of a review undertaken by AM shortly after his appointment as General Manager. The Newcastle office dealt with support for what was known as SMETS1. This was the first version of a Smart meter which was being developed by the respondent and its parent company. The claimant was brought onboard in 2013 to provide technical assistance to that project. The head office of the respondent company was based in Reading and that site was where the central accounting and human resources departments were based. The office at Reading also housed the research and development project into what was know at SMETS2. This was a project which was designed effectively to replace the SMETS1 meter and was a project into which many millions of pounds had been invested with a view to creating a RESERVED JUDGMENT Case Number 2501083/2016 Smart meter for the UK market which could be installed in the majority of domestic properties to enable readings of gas and electricity consumption to be uploaded automatically to the energy companies without involvement of meter readings and the like. It is a highly technical area.8.4 By 2015 the respondent company was in some difficulty. The gas metering project based in Edinburgh was found not to be fit for purpose. The claimant had had great difficulty in obtaining sufficient support for the SMETS1 project. Much of the work in relation to SMETS1 was carried out in Australia and there was difficulty in obtaining necessary information from Australia to enable the work in Newcastle to proceed smoothly. There was also conflict between the Newcastle office and the Reading office in relation to funding of SMETS1 and SMETS2. The parent company based in Singapore was concerned about the performance of the respondent company and those concerns increased when the general manager of the respondent company, David Stroud, resigned in March 2016.8.5 As a result of that resignation the directors of the parent company How New Seng (Chief Operating Officer) and Lee Kwang Mong (Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”)) headhunted AM to come into the respondent company and effectively sort it out. His brief was quickly to turn around the administrative problems in the respondent company and to provide to the parent company a proper profit and loss assessment which had hitherto been lacking.8.6 The claimant began his duties in 2013 and by 2015 he had effectively completed his technical work on the SMETS1 project and it was agreed with the then General Manager David Stroud that he should focus his attention on the European Market and in particular sales of SMETS1 meters in Europe. In April 2015 the claimant transferred the majority of the staff who reported to him to another colleague, Michelle Wright, and from that time on the claimant mainly was based at home with much travel involved to customers and potential customers and partners in Europe. The claimant enjoyed direct access to the Group CEO Mr Lee Kwan Mong in Singapore and other Singapore based Directors. By the time of the events which led to the claimant’s dismissal the claimant had four members of staff reporting to him, Boris Pracek – Sales Manager Contractor based in Slovenia, Mihael Hribar – Product Manager Contractor based in Slovenia, Lionel Yeong – Account Manager and Support based in Newcastle and Sam Golightly – Firmware Development Lead who worked on a part time basis and was based in Newcastle.8.7 At the end of March 2016 the claimant was contacted by Directors in Singapore to discuss the resignation of David Stroud as General Manager of the respondent company and it was agreed that pending the appointment of AM the claimant would report and communicate through Anthony Campion who at that time was in charge of UK sales.8.8 I find that an organisational chart (page 191) dated 12 May 2016 effectively reflected the position when AM came into post at the end of March 2016 with the claimant being shown as “Head of Technical Services” reporting to Anthony Campion. That organisational chart did not however reflect the actual work being carried out by the claimant at that time as he was effectively dealing with European sales. I find that the organisational chart at page 192 was being worked on at the time the claimant was RESERVED JUDGMENT Case Number 2501083/2016 being dismissed and was issued some three weeks after his dismissal on 3 June 2016. That draft structure chart showed at least 11 posts marked “TBH” – to be hired. This chart was not shown to the claimant at any time prior to his dismissal.8.9 AM came into post in late March 2016. He had spent some days in the company prior to that assessing the situation and he did not like what he found. He found an organisation which he deemed to be without proper structure. Together with the also newly appointed Finance Director WH, he set about assessing the viability of the respondent company and the strength or otherwise of its internal organisation. Initially AM thought to transfer the operations of the respondent to the Reading office but on further review, AM decided that it was more appropriate to base all functions of the company (other than research and development) in Newcastle for that was a more cost effective option. AM put plans in place to achieve that result and to have the Reading office used for research and development functions particularly in relation to SMETS2 and in relation to a government contract being managed from that office which was mainly involved in research and development.8.10 The claimant’s perception of his seniority in the Newcastle office was not shared by AM and his colleagues on the review which took place in March/April 2016. AM had a chart prepared showing the responsibilities of various people within the respondent and that chart was described as “middle managers” and the claimant was described as such. The claimant did not see that chart prior to these proceedings but that clearly reflected how he was perceived by AM. The claimant perceived himself as being a senior manager and indeed a member of the senior management team at the Newcastle office.8.11 AM came into post and immediately decided to bring into the respondent company two other people who were known to him from previous organisations and who had worked with him. These two individuals came into the respondent company at various times in April and May 2016 and effectively took over aspects of some roles which were being carried out by others at that time but the titular positions which they filled were new. The two individuals were Mike Wong and Manuel Alvarez who between them had experience of so called pre- integration testing (“PIT”) and systems integration testing (“SIT”) which was lacking within the respondent company. They began work with the respondent company as self-employed contractors.8.12 Whilst bringing in additional staff at a higher level to the respondent company, AM carried out his review. He concluded that the structure of the respondent company required change and he was also greatly concerned about sales to the European market on which the claimant had concentrated his efforts in the previous twelve months. There had been no meaningful sales in the European market in that whole period and AM quickly concluded that the product being offered to that market, namely SMETS1, was not a product which was suited to the Eastern European market. The demand in that market area was for a low cost and low quality meter and SMETS1 did not meet that description.8.13 As part of his review AM visited the Newcastle office on 12 April 2016. He had asked CS to organise for him to meet people in groups of four and he gave each of them a presentation and then asked and answered questions. The claimant did not wish to see AM on a group basis and requested a one to one meeting and this was RESERVED JUDGMENT Case Number 2501083/2016 accommodated. The claimant welcomed AM and was optimistic that he would bring to the respondent company much needed structure and direction. However, the meeting was not wholly successful because I find at the end of the meeting AM was critical of what he had heard about the claimant and told him that he had heard that the claimant was not a team player and that he had bridges to rebuild and that he would have to relinquish control over Europe. AM told the claimant that he did not mediate between two senior managers of a senior management team but that they could both go. AM told the claimant that once he had made up his mind he rarely changed it. Ostensibly the meeting ended on a friendly basis but the claimant’s concerns were already raised in relation to his position. I conclude that he was right to be concerned. I also find that at that meeting the claimant did tell AM that he had no relevant skills in respect of PIT and SIT.8.14 The review of AM continued throughout April 2016 and in particular the claimant was made aware that Manuel Alvarez was to join the respondent in order to run a project in Reading and his job title was ultimately decided and announced as being Products Manager for EDMI Europe. Products management was an area where the claimant was largely involved and he felt his own position threatened by this appointment.8.15 AM and Manuel Alvarez visited the Newcastle office on 11 and 12 May 2016 and the claimant sought a meeting with Manuel Alvarez to explain to him the current background and activities of the respondent in Europe. The claimant had no contact with AM during that two day visit and in particular did not accept an invitation to go out for dinner with members of the management team. Between 13 and 17 May 2015, meetings took place between AM and CS and WH and other senior managers when decisions were taken as to the roles to be placed at risk of redundancy. These were important meetings and CS made notes of them. The notes were not before me and it is said they cannot be located. The records of the respondent were poor: the claimant’s job description was not held on his personnel file and thus was never considered at all during the ensuing redundancy consultation process. In the redundancy process the respondent did not trouble to keep notes of any meetings with the claimant. The claimant produced some notes and these were agreed by the respondent but the respondent did not know in advance of the meetings that the claimant was going to take notes. Had the claimant not done so, there would have been no notes of any of the so called consultation meetings.8.16 The next event of significance was on 18 May 2016 when AM sent out an announcement by e-mail to the company (page 193) which read:- “… the business structure needs to adapt and go through a period of change. As a result of this we will be undertaking a full review of the roles within the company and what sites these roles are carried out at in order to make sure the staffing model reflects where the company needs to be to move forward. We anticipate that the review is likely to result in some staff being made redundant. We will contact you individually by close of business Friday, 20 May if you role has been identified as being at risk of redundancy. We are fully aware of our consultation obligations in respect of any staff who are at risk of redundancy and will carry out a full consultation with staff accordingly. We are committed to minimising the number of redundancies that arise as a result of this restructuring and appreciate your professionalism during this transition”.[9]Claimant9.1 The claimant produced written submissions to me which are held on the Tribunal file - the final version of which document extended to six pages. The claimant made submissions in respect of each of the identified issues and I considered those submissions in detail. The claimant supplemented the written submissions with oral submissions. I summarise the submissions briefly.9.2 There was no documentary evidence to support the existence of a redundancy situation. More contractors were brought into the senior management team.9.3 The claimant submitted that he had been targeted by AM for redundancy and that AM had concluded that the claimant’s role was redundant without carrying out any proper analysis of the situation. CS had confirmed as head of HR that she was not involved in any discussions about possible redundancies prior to acting on the instruction of AM. Michelle Wright had taken over the duties of the claimant in relation to SMETS1 in April 2015 but her role was never placed at risk of redundancy. The claimant submitted his duties in relation to sales in Europe had not diminished and in fact were taken up by Manuel Alvarez who worked for the respondent as a contractor.9.4 The claimant submitted it was not reasonable to consider him in a pool of one: it was unreasonable for the respondent not to include Michelle Wright in a pool with him and the claimant asserted he did possess skills in relation to SMETS2 which the respondent had failed to specify and investigate.9.5 The claimant submitted that the respondent’s approach to bumping namely that it was unfair was an unreasonable position to adopt. This was particularly so in relation to Manuel Alvarez who was only put into the role of Head of Product Management a matter of days before the redundancies were announced which led to the claimant’s dismissal.9.6 It was submitted that the head of HR claimed under cross examination that she knew the claimant’s role was at risk in 2015 when she joined the respondent and yet no warning was given and no steps were taken to preserve the claimant’s position by freezing recruitment in 2015.9.7 The claimant submitted that the consultation process was predetermined and a sham. In addition no reasonable consideration was given to finding alternative employment for the claimant. The organisational charts produced by the respondent during the hearing were not available at the time of the consultation and no consideration was given to inviting the claimant to move to Reading or elsewhere in the global organisation of which the respondent was part.9.8 The claimant submitted that a fair procedure would surely have resulted in a post for him in the respondent organisation given his breadth of experience, 3 years’ service with the respondent and exemplary employment record. The claimant contended that he had not contributed to his dismissal by culpable or blameworthy conduct as he did not RESERVED JUDGMENT Case Number 2501083/2016 have appropriate information from the respondent to which to respond at any time during the process.[10]Respondent10.1 On behalf of the respondent Mr Robinson-Young made written submissions which he supplemented orally. I summarise the submissions briefly.10.2 It was submitted that whilst the process which had been undertaken by the respondent could have been done better at times it was nonetheless a reasonable process and the claimant should not succeed.10.3 It was submitted that a review of the respondent company took place and it was determined that the role carried out by the claimant would disappear and the functions would be absorbed by staff in the Reading office. The claimant had been sent a list of vacant posts in the respondent company which included the post of Sales Account Manager which could be based from any location in the UK and carried a salary of £75000 per annum plus commission. The claimant did not apply for that role and acted unreasonably in not doing so. The appeal against dismissal lodged by the claimant was taken by CC but was not successful as the claimant did not engage in the consultation process and the pool he suggested was not considered feasible. The claimant had not engaged in the consultation process at all.10.4 It was submitted that the claimant had contributed significantly to his dismissal by refusing to impart any information or suggestions which could have assisted in avoiding his dismissal. This should be reflected in any compensatory award to which the claimant may be entitled.10.5 It was submitted that the pool suggested by the claimant was unreasonable and that so long as the employer had genuinely applied its collective mind to that question, it was not for the claimant to challenge the decision to place the claimant in a pool of one. Reference was made to the decision in Taymech –v- Ryan EAT/663/94.10.6 It was submitted that if it was deemed the dismissal was procedurally unfair then an assessment should be made as to whether a fair dismissal could and would have taken place. That might involve a further period of time in which to complete a fair process which might include preparation of completed organisational charts. Reference was made to the guidance in Contract Bottling –v- Anor UKEAT/0100/14/DM10.7 In oral submissions reference was made to the decision in Robinson –v- British Island Airways Limited 1978 ICR 304 and the necessity to look at the situation as a whole to determine whether the respondent has established redundancy as the reason for dismissal. It was submitted that there was clearly a reorganisation which led to redundancies in this case namely 4 in Newcastle and the rest in Reading. The Law Claim for Ordinary Unfair Dismissal Sections 94-98 (inclusive) Employment Rights Act 1996 (“the 1996 Act”)
Conclusions
[13]Remedy Findings of fact in respect of remedy13.1 The claimant was paid £98,832 per annum at the date of his dismissal. This equates to the sum of £8,236 per month gross and £5,399 per month net. Expressed on a weekly basis this equates to £1,900.61 per week gross and £1,245.92 per week net.13.2 In addition the claimant received from the respondent a 7% contribution each month to his pension. This represented a 7% contribution on gross earnings and over a 12 month period represented a payment of £6,918.24 which expressed monthly amounts to £576.52 and expressed weekly amounts to £133.04.13.3 The claimant received no other benefits in kind.13.4 The claimant was dismissed as from 3 June 2016 (pages 216-217). At the time of his dismissal the claimant was paid a redundancy payment wrongly calculated at £958. He was paid his salary for the month of May 2016 and his outstanding holiday entitlement. In addition the claimant was paid three months pay in lieu of notice which equated to £24,709.50 gross. I have considered whether the payment in lieu of notice to the claimant was paid gross or net of tax and national insurance. The document attached to the claimant’s schedule of loss dated 19 September 2016 which was a pay statement received from the respondent dated 30 June 2016 shows a net payment to the claimant of £18,054.06. It is not clear to me what the pay adjustment of £7,096.06 referred to on that statement relates to but I am satisfied that the payment in lieu of notice of £24,709.50 gross was subjected to tax and national insurance and that the claimant received the 13 weeks’ notice pay net of deductions. Conclusions in respect of Remedy14.1 The claimant expressed the wish to receive the remedy of compensation. Accordingly I will not consider any reemployment orders.14.2 I have considered the question of the payment of a basic award for unfair dismissal. This falls to be calculated in accordance with section 119 of the 1996 Act read with section 97(2) of the 1996 Act. The effect of section 97(2) is to make the effective date of termination of the claimant’s contract fall at the end of the period of statutory notice to which the claimant would have been entitled pursuant to section 86 of the 1996 Act. In the RESERVED JUDGMENT Case Number 2501083/2016 circumstances of this case the claimant would have been entitled to two weeks statutory notice. Accordingly the position for the purposes of calculation of the basic award is that the claimant began employment with the respondent on 16 June 2013 and his contract ended on 3 June 2016. The claimant was aged 41 years at the time of dismissal. However, if two weeks statutory notice is added to the date of termination of 3 June 2016 that brings the date of termination artificially to 17 June 2016 which would mean the claimant had three years’ service at point of dismissal. Accordingly the claimant is entitled to 3 x £479 which is the maximum amount of a week’s pay for the purposes of the calculation of the basic award. That gives to the claimant an entitlement to a basic award of £1,437. From this must be deducted the amount of the redundancy payment which was paid to the claimant at the time of his dismissal namely £958. Accordingly there is due to the claimant by way of a basic award for unfair dismissal the sum of £479. I would point out that the calculation of the redundancy payment made to the claimant on 3 June 2016 was incorrect as it should have been £1,437. A redundancy payment falls to be calculated pursuant to section 162 of the 1996 Act but that has to be read with section 145(5) of the 1996 Act which also serves to extend the effective date of termination. However, as the claimant has now been awarded the basic award for unfair dismissal, nothing now turns on this error.14.3 I am satisfied that the claimant has been in receipt of Jobseekers Allowance since the time of his dismissal and therefore the Employment Tribunals (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996 (“the 1996 Regulations”) apply to this award and it is necessary therefore that I calculate compensation due to the claimant to the date of the promulgation of this decision namely 3 March 2017. That will be the prescribed element for the purposes of the 1996 Regulations. The remaining part of the compensatory award will be the non-prescribed element and the 1996 Regulations will not apply to that part of the compensatory award.14.4 I conclude above that there is a chance that the claimant could have been fairly dismissed after a further period of four weeks from the date when he was actually dismissed. Accordingly I propose to allow full pay to the claimant for the period of four weeks, 3 June 2016-1July 2016. At a net weekly sum of £1,245.92 this gives a figure of £4,983.68. For the following 13 week period, namely from 1 July 2016 - 30 September 2016, there is no loss to the claimant because the claimant was paid 13 weeks net pay at the time of his dismissal and there can be no double recovery. Accordingly loss to the claimant begins again on 30 September 2016. The period from 30 September 2016 - 3 March 2017 is 22 weeks. At £1,245.92 per week net this gives a figure of compensation of £27,410.24 (namely 22 x £1245.92). If that sum is reduced by 75% (£20,577.68) it leaves a figure due to the claimant of £6,852.56.14.5 I consider it right to award the claimant losses for 12 months from the date of his dismissal. There is no suggestion by the respondent that the RESERVED JUDGMENT Case Number 2501083/2016 claimant has failed to mitigate his loss in any way. That concession was quite rightly made by Mr Robinson-Young given the evidence before the Tribunal. I consider that it will take the claimant 12 months before he finds alternative employment given the highly specialist nature of his work. He has made every effort to find work to date without success. I will therefore award compensation for the period 3 March 2017 – 3 June 2017 which is 12 months since the claimant was dismissed. The period from 3 March 2017 until 31 May 2017 is 13 weeks and at £1.245.92 per week this gives an award of £16,196.96. If that sum is reduced by 75% (£12,147.72), that leaves £4049.24 due to the claimant.14.6 I propose to award loss of statutory rights of £500 and I propose to award the claimant 7% of his gross annual salary of £98,832 by way of compensation for the pension contribution which would have been made by the respondent to the claimant in the one year following his dismissal. 7% of £98,832 equates to £6,918.24. That gives a sum of £7,418.24 which if reduced by 75% (£5563.68) gives an amount of £1854.56 due to the claimant. Compensation Table[15]I summarise the awards of compensation in the following table: Basic award 3 x £479£ 1,437.00 Less redundancy payment paid at dismissal £ 958.00 Balance due to claimant - £ 479.00(a) (A) Compensatory award – prescribed element 3.6.2016-1.7.2016 4 weeks at full loss of £1,245.92 per week (no Polkey deduction) £4,983.68 Period 1 July 2016-30 September 2016 No loss 30 September 2016-3 March 2017 – 22 weeks at £1,245.92 per week £27,410.24 Less Polkey deduction of 75% in respect of the the period of loss from 30 September 2016 onwards namely 75% of £27,410.24£20,557.68 Amount due to claimant £ 6,852.56 Add full loss from 3 June 2016-1 July 2016£ 4,983.68£11,836.24(b) (B) Compensatory award - non prescribed element Loss 3.3.2017-3.6.2017 – 13 weeks at £1,245.92£16,196.96 RESERVED JUDGMENT Case Number 2501083/2016 Loss of statutory rights £ 500.00 Loss of pension – 7% x £98.832£ 6,918.24 Total £23,615.20 Less 75% £17.711.40 Amount due £ 5,903.80(c) (C) Summary Basic award £ 479.00 (A) Compensatory award – prescribed element £11,836.24 (B) Compensatory award – non-prescribed element £ 5,903.80 (C) GRAND TOTAL £18,219.04
Summary
[25]Fees The claimant has paid £1,200 fees in order to file this claim and obtain a hearing and it is right that the claimant should be awarded that sum to be paid by the respondent and I make that order pursuant to rule 78(1)(c) of schedule 1 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013.[26]Accordingly the total sum due from the respondent to the claimant is £19419.04. The amount of £11836.24 is subject to potential recoupment as explained in the note attached to this Judgment. The balance of £7582.80 is due to the claimant forthwith. EMPLOYMENT JUDGE A M BUCHANAN