Case 1402943/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Gillespie v Metal Processing Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 1402943/2022
- Decision date
- 24 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brewer Representation
- Venue
- Southampton Tribunal via Video Hearing Service
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Gillespie
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr D Gillespie, was employed by Metal Processing Limited as one of two drivers. The respondent’s business was in financial difficulty in August 2022 and the tribunal found that the business was closing because the landlord would not extend the lease on the site. On 4 August 2022, Ms Burcham told the claimant at lunchtime that he was being made redundant with immediate effect. The tribunal accepted that the reason for dismissal was redundancy.
The tribunal directed itself by reference to section 98(4) ERA 1996 and the redundancy authorities it cited, including Williams and ors v Compair Maxam Ltd, Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd, Thomas and Betts Manufacturing Co v Harding, Kvaerner Oil and Gas Ltd v Parker, British Aerospace plc v Green, De Grasse v Stockwell Tools Ltd, and Fisher v Hoopoe Finance Ltd. It found that the respondent’s process did not involve any warning or consultation with the claimant about his provisional selection, the criteria used, or the application of those criteria to him.
The tribunal also found the basis for selection to be opaque. Although the respondent said the claimant had been selected against skill set, attendance, reliability and performance, there was no evidence that he was unreliable or performed badly, and it was unclear what extra skills were required for the closure process. The tribunal noted that Mr Brill, the other driver, remained employed until 2 February 2023, so there was plainly a comparison between the two drivers. It concluded that the selection process was unfair and that there was no evidential basis for finding the dismissal fair and reasonable.
On remedy, the tribunal recorded that the claimant had already received payment in lieu of notice and statutory redundancy pay. It therefore said he was not entitled to a basic award. It awarded compensatory loss of £6,278.38 made up of two weeks’ net pay while unemployed, the difference between new and previous net earnings from 31 August 2022 to 2 February 2023, loss of bonus, pension loss, and loss of statutory rights. The total award was £6,278.38, and the tribunal noted that no grossing up was needed because the sum was below £30,000.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Redundancy dismissal; tribunal found no warning or consultation about selection and no adequate explanation for why Mr Brill stayed employed instead of the claimant. | Upheld | — | £6,278 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,278
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £6,278
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
8 references- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- Williams and ors v Compair Maxam Ltd
- Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd
- Thomas and Betts Manufacturing Co v Harding
- Kvaerner Oil and Gas Ltd v Parker
- British Aerospace plc v Green
- De Grasse v Stockwell Tools Ltd
- Fisher v Hoopoe Finance Ltd
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.