MISS INESE METERE v Winkleigh Timber Limited — 2022

The claimant, a Latvian national employed by Winkleigh Timber Limited as a polisher, was made redundant on 25 July 2021. The tribunal accepted the respondent's evidence that the business experienced a downturn during the Covid period, that redundancy was a genuine reason, and that the claimant's selection for possible redundancy was carried out fairly using a scoring matrix. It also found that there were no other suitable positions available, even though the claimant said she was open to alternative work and retraining.

The dismissal was nevertheless held to be unfair because the respondent did not make direct or personal contact with the claimant before the redundancy decision. The tribunal found that a letter dated 2 June 2021 inviting discussion was not received, and that the claimant first learned of possible redundancy only when the letter dated 2 July 2021 was sent. Given that text messaging had previously been the parties' preferred method of communication, the tribunal held that the respondent should reasonably have contacted her by text or telephone so that redundancy and alternatives could be discussed.

On remedy for unfair dismissal, the tribunal found that the claimant had only two years' continuous service because she had resigned in 2019 before briefly working for Forthglade and then returning to the respondent on 4 February 2019. It assessed a basic award at £887.79, but that was offset by the £891 redundancy payment already made, leaving a nil basic award. The claimant's out-of-work period to 17 November 2021 would ordinarily have supported a compensatory award of about £5,308 net, but the tribunal reduced that award by 100% under Polkey because it was satisfied she would have been dismissed in any event, so no compensatory award was made.

The wrongful dismissal and additional redundancy pay claims were dismissed for the same reason: the tribunal found that continuous employment had been broken by the 2019 resignation, so the claimant was only entitled to the shorter service-based notice and redundancy entitlements. It found that she had been paid three weeks' notice, which was more than the statutory minimum of two weeks for her length of service, and that the redundancy payment was correctly calculated on the two-year period. Separately, the tribunal awarded £612.93 under s.38 ERA 1996 because the claimant had not been given written particulars after being re-employed, and it considered two weeks' net pay just and equitable having regard to the size of the business and the parties' understanding that she was returning on the same basis as before.