Mrs HA Spence v Mrs T Jakes T/a Meadcroft Nursery: 3316475/2021
JUDGMENT
[1]The claimant was dismissed and did not resign.[2]The dismissal was by reason of redundancy.[3]The dismissal was unfair in all of the circumstances of the case.[4]On the issue of remedy, the procedural unfairness would have made no difference to the outcome and therefore the claimant is not entitled to any compensatory award.[5]The claims of breach of contract and unauthorised deduction from wages fail and are dismissed.[6]The award made to the claimant is for the statutory redundancy/basic award in the sum of £5,049. _____________________________ Employment Judge Laidler Date: 14 March 2022 Sent to the parties on: 23/3/2022 N Gotecha For the Tribunal Office Case Number: 3316475/2021 2 Note Reasons for the judgment having been given orally at the hearing, written reasons will not be provided unless a request was made by either party at the hearing or a written request is presented by either party within 14 days of the sending of this written record of the decision. Case No: 3316475/2021 11.6R Judgment – Reconsideration refused – respondent - rule 72 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mrs H A Spence Respondent: Mrs T Jakes T/A Meadcroft NurseryREASONS
[1]This is the respondent’s application for reconsideration dated 28 March 2022. As it had not been copied to the claimant her views were sought and those of the 21 May 2022 taken into account in reaching this decision.[2]The respondent states that the claimant’s weekly wage was £297 and not the sum of £306 used to calculate the award to the claimant. The figure used was taken from the ET1 form. In its Response to that the respondent accepted that the earnings stated by the claimant were correct. The tribunal therefore is satisfied that the correct figure was used and there was no evidence to the contrary[3]The respondent also now states that there had been an overpayment of wages to the claimant. No employers counter claim was raised in these proceedings, that is not a ground for reconsideration and a separate matter on which the respondent can seek independent legal advice on if it so wishes. Case No: 3316475/2021 11.6R Judgment – Reconsideration refused – respondent - rule 72[4]There is no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked, and the application for reconsideration is refused.