Mr J Hattee and Mrs E Bancroft v Ideal Shopping Direct Ltd (in Voluntary Liquidation) and Ideal World Ltd: 3307121/2022 and 3309601/2022
JUDGMENT
[1]Upon the unchallenged evidence of Mr Hattee and Mrs Bancroft, the Tribunal determine that both Claimant’s were part of an organised resources wholly assigned to the First Respondent prior to the transfer to the Second Respondent.[2]Therefore should have been transferred to the Second Respondent by virtue of Regulation 4 of the Transfer of Undertakings Protection of Employment Regulations 2006, to the Second Respondents. _____________________________ Employment Judge Postle Date: 31/08/2023 Sent to the parties on: 7/9/2023. N Gotecha For the Tribunal Office Case Number: 3307121/2022 1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant(s): Mr J Hattee Respondent(s):(1) Ideal Shopping Direct Limited (in administration)(2) Ideal World Limited (in administration) Heard at: Bury St Edmunds Employment Tribunal (via CVP) On: 7 December 2023 Before: Employment Judge Hanning Appearances For the Claimant(s): Mr L Pike (Solicitor) For the Respondent(s): Neither Respondent attended or was represented[1]The complaint of breach of contract in relation to notice pay is well-founded.[2]The second respondent shall pay the claimant £25,000 as damages for breach of contract. This figure has been calculated using gross pay to reflect the likelihood that the claimant will have to pay tax on it as Post Employment Notice Pay.[3]The complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages is well-founded. The first respondent made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages in the period 15 to 22 February 2022.[4]The second respondent shall pay the claimant £2,331.29 which is the gross sum deducted. The claimant is responsible for the payment of any tax or National Insurance[5]The complaint of unfair dismissal is well founded. The claimant was unfairly dismissed. Case Number: 3307121/2022 2[6]The second respondent shall pay the claimant a compensatory award of £89,493.00. (Note that this is the actual sum payable to the claimant after any deductions or uplifts have been applied).[7]The respondents failed to inform and consult the claimant as required under Regulation 13 of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006, and are ordered to pay the claimant 13 weeks’ pay, amounting to £37,500.00 gross.[8]The respondents are jointly and severally liable for the award in accordance with regulation 15(9).[9]The respondents failed to comply with the provisions of section 188 of the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 by not electing or consulting with appropriate employee representatives.[10]The claimant is entitled to a protective award for a period of 90 days beginning on 22 February 2022 payable by the second respondent.[11]The respondents are under a duty to provide the required information to the Secretary of State under regulation 5(2)(6) of the Employment Protection Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996 and in respect of any remuneration to which they are entitled under this protective award and payment is stayed pursuant to regulations 7 and 8.