Ms K Scattergood v Secretary of State for Business Innovation and Skills and Alpha Maintenance and Building Ltd: 2600664/2018
JUDGMENT
Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 – Rule 21 L The tribunal declares that the complaint that the Second Respondent failed to comply with a requirement of Section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 is well founded and makes a protective award of €5,695.89 in respect of the Claimant who was dismissed on 19 February 2018 as redundant and orders the Second Respondent to pay the said sum as remuneration for the protected period beginning on 19 February 2018 The clamant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and is entitled to a redundancy payment of €888.46. Employment Judge Moore Date 30th October 2018 JUDGMENT SENT TO THE PARTIES ON AND ENTERED IN THE REGISTER FOR THE TRIBUNAL OFFICE 4 1 7 Rule 21 judgment - universal template September 2017 Case No: 2600664/2018 10.15 Certificate of Correction – rule 69 March 2017 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Miss K Scattergood Respondent: Secretary of State for Business Innovation and Skills CERTIFICATE OF CORRECTION Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 Under the provisions of Rule 69, the judgment sent to the parties on 31 October 2018, is corrected as set out in block type at paragraph 1 as below.[1]The tribunal declares that the complaint that the Second Respondent failed to comply with a requirement of Section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 is well founded and makes a protective award of 90 DAYS in respect of the Claimant who was dismissed on 19 February 2018 as redundant and orders the Second Respondent to pay the said sum as remuneration for the protected period beginning on 19 February 2018.[2]The claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and is entitled to a redundancy payment of £888.46. Employment Judge Moore ______________________________ Date 30 October 2018 Important note to parties: Any dates for the filing of appeals or reviews are not changed by this certificate of correction and corrected judgment. These time limits still run from the date of the original judgment, or original judgment with reasons, when appealing. Case No: 2600664/2018 11.12 Judgment on reconsideration – no hearing - rules 70 and 73 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Miss K Scattergood Respondent:(1) Secretary of State for Business Innovation and Skills(2) Alpha Maintenance and Building Limited UPON a reconsideration of the judgment dated 30 October 2018 on the Tribunal’s own initiative under rule 73 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, and without a hearing,REASONS
[1]By letter dated 4 January 2019 the Insolvency Service queried whether the claimant was entitled to redundancy payment. This was because they had raised a query about the claimant’s effective date of termination. If it was 19 February 2018 the claimant was dismissed short of two yea’s service. If it was one week before 7 March 2018 the claimant would have reached the requisite period of service as she would have been dismissed in breach of her statutory notice period.[2]The claimant was asked to comment on this query in a letter dated 14 February 2019 and has failed to respond.[3]In the interests of justice Employment Judge Moore considers that the Insolvency Service should not be liable for a redundancy payment where there is a discrepancy over the requisite period of service. The information provided by the claim form on her ET1 will stand in the absence of any clarification by the claimant. Case No: 2600664/2018 11.12 Judgment on reconsideration – no hearing - rules 70 and 73