Mrs D Burton and others v Adrian Hall Ltd (in Creditors Voluntary Liquidation): 3310996/2022 and others
JUDGMENT
[1]All claimants were unfairly dismissed by the respondent and their claims of unfair dismissal succeed.[2]The respondent is ordered to pay to each claimant a compensatory award of £500.00.REASONS
[1]This was the hearing directed by Employment Judge Curtis on 20 March 2023.[2]After that hearing, the proceedings were re-served on the respondent’s liquidator on 28 March 2023. No reply was received, and the claim therefore proceeds on the basis that the requirements of Rule 21 have been satisfied, namely that the respondent is debarred from taking part in the proceedings, no response having been received.[3]Each claimant had, as directed by Judge Curtis, submitted a short statement of their losses since dismissal.[4]Before the hearing, I reviewed the information posted in the public domain online about the respondent company at the Companies House website. I noted in particular that the Statement of Affairs of 22 August 2022 stated a total deficiency in excess of £1.7 million.[5]I dealt with this hearing informally.[6]At the first stage, the three claimants confirmed that each, and Miss Ford, had been at work on Tuesday 16 August 2022, when managers had told them that the garden centre was to close at once, asked them to complete their tasks (and in Mrs Burton’s case to cash up), after which there was a meeting of all staff at which they were told that liquidators had been appointed and that they were immediately dismissed.[7]Although there had been discussion about a possible TUPE transfer the previous March and April, no claimant had had any prior indication before the meeting with the liquidators that their employment was at risk.[8]I accept that the reason for the dismissals was redundancy, meaning that with immediate closure and imminent liquidation of the business, the respondent’s needs for work of the type undertaken by each claimant had ceased. I find that these dismissals were unfair. The reason is that I accept that the respondent took no steps whatsoever by way of consultation or discussion with any claimant about the risk which faced their employment, or about possible means of averting the risk.[9]I explained to the claimants that compensation for unfair dismissal may be thought of in two separate categories. The first category is compensation for past service, which is represented by statutory redundancy payment (or, in cases of unfair dismissal, the equivalent basic award). The claimants have received that sum from the Insolvency Service and cannot be awarded it again.[10]The second is compensation for future losses, following on from the date of dismissal. That is an amount which seems to the tribunal fair, in light of losses suffered by the claimants arising out of an unfair dismissal. In this case, analysis of that figure required me to consider what financial difference the absence of consultation made. Judge Curtis had written that that question would arise at this hearing. In plainer terms, the question was whether consultation might have made any difference, by prolonging the employment of these claimants and delaying their dismissals.[11]The difficulty for these claimants, which is also the difficulty for any employee whose employer ceases business, was that the financial information indicated that the respondent was in such severe financial difficulty around the time of dismissal that consultation with staff could not be shown to be likely to postpone the liquidation and therefore prolong their employment.[12]I adjourned for about 20 minutes to give the claimants the opportunity of commenting on that question. Mrs Burton described the dismissal as “a bolt out of the blue” and, understandably enough, as “a real kick in the teeth;” She commented that the respondent had been in business for 50 years and that she had been its employee for over 20. Mr Parsons and Mr Edwards agreed with Mrs Burton.[13]I accept that their comments were sincere. However, in light of the figures in the Statement of Affairs, I can see no basis for finding that if the unfairness in this case had been remedied, or had not happened at all, the employment of any individual would have been extended. I therefore make no compensatory award in respect of future loss of employment earnings.[14]At the hearing I overlooked that element of the compensatory award, which is compensation for loss of continuity of service. That is a sum of money which represents the reality that it takes two years in the next employment to acquire the security of employment of the right not to be unfairly dismissed. With apologies for my oversight at the hearing, I award each claimant the sum of £500.00 for that element.