Ms G Bansal v Selina Management Company UK Ltd: 6008686/2024
JUDGMENT
[1]The claim of unfair dismissal is well founded and succeeds.[2]The claim for unlawful deductions in respect of the non-payment of commission is well founded and succeed.[3]The claim for breach of contract in terms of unpaid notice pay and unpaid commission going forward is well founded and succeed.[4]The claim for holiday pay is well founded and succeed.[5]In respect of the claim of unfair dismissal, the Respondent shall pay the Claimant a basic award of £3,150 and a compensatory award of £52,500. Both of those sums are net sums and shall not be subject to any deductions.[6]In respect of the unlawful deductions claim for unpaid commission, the Respondent shall pay the Claimant the sum of £4,377. That is a net sum and shall not be subject to any deductions.[7]In respect of the claim of breach of contract the Respondent shall pay the Claimant the sum of £25,000. That is a net sum and shall not be subject to any deductions.[8]In relation to the claim for holiday pay, the Respondent shall pay the Claimant the sum of £1,491.85. Net gross wording. That is a net sum and shall not be subject to any deductions. Total compensation payable: £86,518.85 (net).REASONS
[1]The Claimant brings claims of unfair dismissal, unlawful deductions, breach of contract in terms of unpaid notice pay and unpaid commission, and holiday pay.[2]The Respondent took no interest in these proceedings. No response form was filed. There were no grounds of resistance, and at no stage did the Respondent correspond with the Tribunal.[3]There was no attendance or representation by or on behalf of the Respondent at the hearing on 25 July 2025.[4]Despite appearances, as of the time of the hearing on 25 July 2025, the Respondent was still shown as being an active company at Companies House. Evidence before the Tribunal[5]The Claimant gave oral evidence and provided a short bundle of documents.Findings of Fact
[6]The Tribunal made the following findings of fact: 6.1. The Claimant’s date of birth is 21 July 1976. She was employed by the Respondent in the position of Global Sales Director from 2 November 2020 to 1 September 2024, “the effective date of termination”. 6.2. The Claimant’s gross annual salary was £70,000. She was also entitled to private health insurance. 6.3. On 31 July 2024, the Respondent invited the Claimant to a meeting. Immediately upon the commencement of the meeting she was told that her position was redundant with immediate effect and that Respondent could not deploy her and was not advertising for any roles. An offer was made to pay her certain monies. The precise amounts are irrelevant, given that the Respondent made no payment to the Claimant after the meeting on 31 July 2024. 6.4. Following the meeting on 31 July 2024, the Claimant became aware that the Respondent was advertising for new positions she could have been considered for, and had also redeployed people within the business. 6.5. The Claimant submitted an appeal against dismissal on 7 August 2024. The appeal was dismissed on 14 August 2024. 6.6. The Claimant chased for payment on a number of occasions, all to no avail.Discussion and Conclusions
[7]The claim of unfair dismissal is well founded and succeeds. The Respondent failed to demonstrate a potentially fair reason for dismissal. In any event, dismissal was manifestly unfair, there being no proper consultation with the Claimant before the decision was taken to dismiss her, or proper consideration by the Respondent of alternative roles. There was no meaningful appeal against dismissal[8]The Tribunal was not satisfied that the reason for dismissal was redundancy. On the Claimant’s own case, the Respondent was advertising for roles which she could have performed after the termination of her employment. Had she been entitled to a redundancy payment this would, in any event, have been cancelled out by her receipt of the basic award referred to at paragraph 9 below.[9]In respect of the claim of unfair dismissal, the Respondent shall pay the Claimant a basic award of £3,150 and a compensatory award of £52,500. Both of those sums are net sums and shall not be subject to any deductions.[10]In relation to the compensatory award, the Tribunal concluded that the appropriate measure would be 12 months’ net loss of earnings, subject to mitigation. The Claimant has applied for numerous jobs (for example via LinkedIn and by approaches made to businesses she previously worked for) but has been unsuccessful in her job search. The burden is on a respondent to establish a failure to mitigate. There is no burden on a claimant to establish that he or she has mitigated his or her loss.[11]The claim for unlawful deductions in respect of the non-payment of commission is well founded and succeeds. In respect of that claim, the Respondent shall pay the Claimant the sum of £4,377. That is a net sum and shall not be subject to any deductions.[12]The claim for breach of contract in terms of unpaid notice pay and unpaid commission going forward is well founded and succeeds. In respect of the claim of breach of contract the Respondent shall pay the Claimant the sum of £25,000. That is a net sum and shall not be subject to any deductions. The maximum award a Tribunal can make for breach of contract is £25,000. The Claimants’ claim for unpaid notice pay and unpaid commission is worth significantly in excess of that sum. The Tribunal's award in this regard is therefore capped at £25,000.[13]The claim for holiday pay is well founded and succeeds. In relation to that claim, the Respondent shall pay the Claimant the sum of £1,491.85. That is a net sum and shall not be subject to any deductions.