Mrs VJ Liu-Murphy v Richard Johnson, Piccadilly Jewellers — 2020

Mrs VJ Liu-Murphy brought a claim for a statutory redundancy payment against Richard Johnson, Piccadilly Jewellers. The tribunal heard evidence from the claimant, Julie Rogers, Richard Johnson, Rosalind Johnson and Barbara Bogulak. It recorded that there was little agreement between the parties about what had happened, and that the claimant’s contract did not require notice of termination to be given in writing.

The respondent’s business was a jewellery retailer, and in October 2019 it decided, on advice from consultants, to close the shop premises and continue trading through a Facebook page and individual meetings. At a staff meeting on 16 October 2019 the consultants explained that the shop would close and that redundancy was probable, but the tribunal found that staff were not informed at that stage about the possibility of a competitor taking over the business. The claimant said she had been told staff would be made redundant and receive redundancy pay; the respondent denied that any such dismissal notice was given.

Applying section 95(1) ERA 1996 and the authorities cited, including Martin v MBS Fastenings (Glynwed) Distribution Ltd, Morton v Sundour Fabrics Ltd v Shaw, and Burton Group v Smith, the tribunal held that the claimant had not proved she was dismissed. Even on her own account, the October 2019 discussion showed only a general intention to make redundancies on an unspecified date, which was not sufficiently certain to constitute dismissal. The tribunal found that there was no clear notice telling her she would be dismissed with effect from 31 January 2020.

The tribunal concluded that the claimant had jumped the gun and left employment before proper notice of termination had been given. It found that she either failed to return from holiday or resigned, in the alternative, through the events of the meeting on 11 January 2020 when her husband said she would not be returning after her holiday and the claimant did not dispute it. The tribunal accepted that the claimant genuinely believed she would be made redundant and sought another job for that reason, but that belief was mistaken. The claim was dismissed, and no redundancy payment was awarded.