Mr Shaun Battista v The Council of the City of Newcastle-upon-Tyne: 2503836/2019
JUDGMENT
[1]MADE AT NEWCASTLE (without a hearing) EMPLOYMENT JUDGE GARNON[3]I award compensation limited to 50% of a basic award being £4,114.17REASONS
[1]On 11 March 2020 I heard this claim of unfair dismissal. The claimant acted in person and the respondent was represented by Mr A Webster of Counsel. The evidence and submissions finished quite late in the afternoon so I reserved my decision. After deliberations on 12 March I gave judgment, with written reasons, in these terms The name of the respondent is amended to that shown above. The claim of unfair dismissal is well founded. I will make no re-employment order but will award compensation limited to 50% of a basic award to be quantified, if necessary, at a remedy hearing on a date to be fixed.[2]Rule 2 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 provides their overriding objective is to enable Employment Tribunals (ET’s) to deal with cases fairly and justly which includes, in so far as practicable(a) ensuring the parties are on an equal footing(b) dealing with a case in ways which are in proportionate to the complexity or importance of the issues(c) avoiding unnecessary formality and seeking flexibility in the proceedings(d) avoiding delay, so far as compatible with proper consideration of the issues(e) saving expense A Tribunal or Employment Judge shall seek to give the effect to the overriding objective in interpreting, or exercising any power given to it by the Rules The parties and their representatives shall assist the Tribunal to further the overriding objective and in particular shall co-operate generally with each other and with the Tribunal The reason for emboldening the word “cases” is that it is not only this case which Employment Judges have to manage and ET staff have to deal with. The overriding objective of ensuring just handling of cases is not confined to the case in question. As Lewison LJ said in Davies-vSandwell Metropolitan Borough Council If the parties have failed in their duty to assist the tribunal to further the overriding objective, the ET must itself take a firm grip on the case. To do otherwise wastes public money; prevents other cases from being heard in a timely fashion, and is unfair to the parties in subjecting them to increased costs and, at least in the case of the employer, detracting from his primary concern, namely to run his business. An appellate court or tribunal (whether the EAT or this court) should, wherever legally possible, uphold robust but fair case management decisionsthe issues
[3]My aim is to give effect to the overriding objective as best I can in these extraordinary times. During the Covid19 pandemic, Tribunal staff are working split shifts to maintain social distancing and unable always to send orders and judgments to parties or forward emails promptly to the Judge. On 30 April a member of the staff emailed asking me whether she should list a remedy hearing and for how long. I replied instructing her to ask the parties if they needed one at all as the only reason I had not in the judgment awarded a specific figure was I did not have the information to perform the arithmetic. A hearing would only be “necessary”( the word I used in the judgment) if any of the figures were disputed.[4]The claimant emailed the Tribunal (without copying to the respondent) on 5 May at 12:53. Hello With reference to the latest, how would the remedy meeting help anything? To add its an insult considering the stress I've suffered regarding slander, bullying from management including those who turned their backs and allowed this to happen, and reading consistent lies. Shaun He emailed the Tribunal again on 6 May, at 16:21 Hello I'm saying again I'd like this remedy hearing. Is there a date for this? Shaun[5]On 7 May the respondent emailed this letter to the Tribunal copied to the claimant We refer to the above named case and Judgment which was given by Employment Judge Garnon on 16 March 2020, sent to the parties on 29 April 2020. We also refer to the Tribunal’s letters to the parties of the 30 April 2020 and 6 May 2020. The Respondent notes from the Judgment that compensation will be limited to 50% of the basic award and the Tribunal is invited to make an Order that the Respondent pay compensation to the Claimant amounting to 50% of the basic award. Set out below is the information needed to calculate the basic award. Date of birth of Claimant: 10.11.1969 Period of service: 04.04.2005 to 11.07.2019 Complete years continuous service: 14 years Claimant’s age at effective date of termination 49 years Gross weekly pay: £457.13 Based on the figures given above, the basic award is £8,228.34. Therefore, the Tribunal is invited to make an Order for compensation amounting to 50% of the basic award to the Claimant which is £4,114.17. On the basis that the Tribunal makes an Order in the terms outlined above, the Respondent is of the view that a Remedies Hearing will not be necessary. A copy of this letter has been sent to the Claimant in compliance with rule 30(2), 30 A(1) and 92 of the Employment Tribunal Rules. The Claimant has been advised that any objection to this application must be sent to the tribunal office as soon as possible and copied to the Respondent.[6]The claimant emailed the Tribunal (again without copying to the respondent) on 12 May at 17:31 Hello I would like to appeal judges the decision. Reasons being... I feel my file should have been read out at least from myself, followed with questioning on all the failings which I raised, the file became pointless. My witness was not asked to attend, despite being in the civic building, I believe he would have made an impression and strengthen my case, neither being fair. It appears the bullying and stress I suffered from my previous Employer has been ignored. No compensation offered for the above including loss of earnings and no job reinstatement is injustice and the 50% reduction is extremely unfair and biased. By way of explanation the Newcastle Hearing Centre is in the same building, though physically separated from, the Civic Centre and the claimant had not asked the witness mentioned to attend. The Tribunal clerk replied saying any appeal should be sent to the Employment Appeal Tribunal. The claimant has never challenged the dates and figures provided by the respondent.[7]In my view, the Rules do not require a hearing for a remedy judgment to be made where a final judgment has already been issued deciding remedy in every respect apart from the arithmetic calculation, unless some element of the figures used for such calculation is disputed, which none is. I have checked the accuracy of the calculation submitted by the respondent and it is correct. It would be contrary to the overriding objective to fix a hearing at the best of times and even more so during the pandemic. EMPLOYMENT JUDGE T M GARNON