Taylorplan Services Ltd v Butcher [1995] UKEAT 43_95_2211

EAT

Taylorplan Services Ltd v Butcher

[1995] UKEAT 43_95_2211 · 1995-11-22

MR JUSTICE KEENE: This is an appeal against the decision of an Industrial Tribunal sitting at Middlesbrough, which decision was entered in the register on 5 December 1994. The unanimous decision of that Tribunal was that the Applicant was unfairly dismissed and then certain awards were made. For the present moment we do not propose to recite the awards.

The claim by the now Respondent arose out of the same situation of the takeover of cleaning services at British Steel Redcar with which the previous appeal, Taylorplan Services Ltd against Mr G. Morris and Mr A. Robinson, case No.

EAT/42/95

, was dealing. In the decision at paragraph 8, the Industrial Tribunal dealt with the individual circumstances of Mr Butcher, the Respondent, and as has been indicated they found that his dismissal was automatically unfair. They then went on to say this:

"11 In our view in view of the applicant's age he is entitled to a compensatory award covering the period from his dismissal to the date of the hearing, ie from 5 June 1993 to 13 October 1994 which on a basic wage of £170 per week would give an award of £170 x 70 = £11,900. This is, of course, in excess of the maximum of £11,000. He has not worked since the take over and is on Income Support."

They then went on, in paragraph 12, as follows:

"12 As there is some doubt as to the applicant's gross and net wage we adjourned the hearing so that evidence can be produced on this point or figures agreed between the parties. Subject to this the applicant is awarded:- (a) A basic award ... "

And then they go on to deal with that, the precise calculation of course having to await the production of figures at an adjourned hearing, unless agreed.

"(b) The sum of £200 for loss of statutory rights. (c) A compensatory award of £11,000."

We need not deal at length with the submissions made today on behalf of the Appellants. We are troubled by two aspects of this decision. First of all, the decision as recorded at the beginning of the Industrial Tribunal's decision, in so far as it deals with the award, states as follows:

"(2) The applicant is awarded: (a) a compensatory award of £11,000 (b) holiday pay in the sum of £596."

No reference is there made to the sum of £200 for loss of statutory rights. On the face of it, there would appear to be some inconsistency between the award as spelt out in paragraph 12, which we have referred to earlier in this decision, and the award as set out at the beginning of the decision, to which we have just referred.

Secondly, the sum of £200 for loss of statutory rights is something which forms part of the compensatory award made under the relevant provisions of the Act and in consequence is subject to the maximum of £11,000 by virtue of Section 75 of the Act; it forms part of the compensation to be awarded. That does not appear to have been recognised in the course of paragraphs 11 and 12 of the Tribunal's decision. However, it may be that the Tribunal was seeking to reflect that fact when it sought to summarise its award at the very beginning of this decision. That may explain why no reference is made to the sum of £200 being awarded for loss of statutory rights.

We find that the award as it stands at present is unclear, and for that reason we propose to remit this matter also to the same Industrial Tribunal, in order that the award itself may be clarified. That remission may be to the Chairman alone and we will so order, because it is within his province to clarify the award which his Tribunal was making on that occasion.

As we say, it may be that the summary at the beginning is intended to reflect a recognition of the fact that the maximum of £11,000 applies to everything including the £200 awarded for loss of statutory rights. Until that matter has been clarified, it does not seem right to us that any further decision should be made in this matter.