Ms E Spallo v Alfaparcel Ltd: 6015168/2024
JUDGMENT
[1]The complaint for a redundancy payment is well-founded and succeeds. The Respondent failed to pay the Claimant her statutory redundancy payment.[2]The Respondent shall pay the Claimant £2,027.49. Approved byREASONS
[1]Ms Spallo (“The Claimant”) brought a claim for redundancy payment against her former employer, Alfaparcel (“The Respondent”).The Hearing
[2]I heard the Claim on 10 March 2025 at Bury St Edmunds Employment Tribunal by CVP. The Claimant represented herself, with the aid of Ms Vita Kauzaonaite, Lithunanian Interpreter. Ms Olesja Antanova, director, represented the Respondent aided by Ms Lillya Munton, Russian Interpreter. Ms Spallo and Ms Antanova gave evidence. I had received the ET1, ET3 and a bundle of 9 pages including unsigned statements from Ms Spallo and Ms Antanova., who both gaveevidence.
[3]There was a delay in my receiving the request for written reasons and professional commitments have prevented me from completing it sooner. I apologise to the parties for any inconvenience caused.Issues
[4]The issue was whether Ms Spallo was entitled to a redundancy payment and whether she had been paid it by the Respondent.Findings of Fact
[5]The Respondent was a small business exporting to Russia.[6]On 13 June 2022 Ms Spallo commenced employment with the Respondent. This was accepted by Respondent.[7]Due to sanctions imposed subsequent to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the Respondent’s business dramatically reduced and all employees were made redundant, including Ms Spallo. The Respondent wrote a letter dated 4 July 2024 giving Ms Spallo notice of redundancy (page 4 of the bundle). Her eective date of termination was 13 August 2024, when Ms Spallo was aged 48. Case No:6015168/2024[8]Ms Spallo was not paid a redundancy payment. Ms Spallo gave evidence of this. Ms Antanova did not challenge her evidence on this point and confirmed in her own evidence that this was the case.[9]Ms Spallo’s gross weekly pay prior to and at the time of dismissal was £675.83 gross. This was the evidence given by Ms Spallo. Ms Antanova did not challenge her evidence in cross-examination and she did not give any evidence of Ms Spallo’s pay being a dierent amount. Law and conclusions[10]Section 135 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (“The Act”) gives the right to a redundancy payment if reason for dismissal is redundancy. It was agreed that Ms Spallo was an employee and had been dismissed by reason of redundancy. The Respondent’s need for employees had ceased due to economic circumstances.[11]Section 155 of the Act requires two years’ qualifying period in order to be entitled to a redundancy payment. Ms Spallo had 2 years’ service and is therefore entitled to redundancy payment.[12]By virtue of Section162 of the Act an employee is entitled to 1.5 week’s pay for every full year employed over the age of 41.[13]Ms Spallo’s age at termination is 48, with 2 years’ service. Her redundancy entitlement is therefore 3 weeks.[14]Ms Spallo’s weekly pay was £675.83. This is less than the statutory cap of £700 for dismissals after April 2024. Ms Spallo’s redundancy entitlement is therefore three weeks gross weekly pay, equating to £2,027.49. Approved: