Case 1405330/2020 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Mr J Strachan, Proprietor — 2021
- Case reference
- 1405330/2020
- Decision date
- 23 August 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr J Connellan, worked for the respondent hotel from 12 April 2016 and, after transfer to the current respondent in January 2019, continued as a Breakfast Chef on a regular eight-hour day shift at £85 per day. The tribunal found that the respondent’s operation was affected by the spring 2020 lockdown and that, on 2 July 2020, it told the claimant it needed to reduce staff levels and costs and offered alternative work on a different basis, which he declined.
The tribunal rejected the respondent’s case that the claimant was on a zero-hours arrangement and found that the reality of the relationship was a regular Breakfast Chef role. It held that the requirements of the respondent’s business for work of that kind had ceased or diminished, so the claimant was dismissed on 2 July 2020 by reason of redundancy within section 139(1)(b) ERA 1996. On that basis, the claimant was entitled to a statutory redundancy payment of £1,700.
The unfair dismissal claim was nevertheless dismissed. Applying section 98(4) ERA 1996, and referring to Williams & Ors v Compair Maxam Ltd, Safeway Stores v Burrell, and Polkey v A E Dayton Services Ltd, the tribunal found that the respondent had consulted reasonably with the claimant and other employees, was operating in difficult financial circumstances, and had offered such alternative employment as was available. It held that, given the size and administrative resources of the employer, the dismissal was fair and reasonable in all the circumstances.
The breach of contract claim in respect of notice succeeded. The tribunal found that the claimant was entitled to four weeks' statutory notice on termination, but because he obtained alternative employment immediately and suffered no loss of earnings, no compensation was awarded. The holiday pay claim was dismissed because the tribunal found that the respondent had given valid notice under Regulation 15(4) of the Working Time Regulations 1998 for nine days' annual leave from 22 June 2020, that the claimant took and was paid for that leave, and that no further holiday remained outstanding at termination.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a statutory redundancy payment of £1,700, calculated as four weeks' gross pay for each of four years' service at £425 per week. | Upheld | — | £1,700 |
| Unfair dismissal | Although the tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy on 2 July 2020, it held the respondent consulted reasonably, offered alternative employment, and acted fairly and reasonably in all the circumstances. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The claimant succeeded on his notice-period claim because he was entitled to four weeks' statutory notice, but no compensation was awarded because he had mitigated his loss by obtaining immediate alternative employment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The holiday pay claim failed because the tribunal found the respondent gave valid Regulation 15(4) notice on 4 June 2020, the claimant took and was paid for the nine days' leave from 22 June 2020, and no further holiday was outstanding. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,700
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
7 references- s.98(2)(c) ERA 1996
- s.139(1)(b) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- Regulation 15(4) of the Working Time Regulations 1998
- Williams & Ors v Compair Maxam Ltd [1982] IRLR 83
- Safeway Stores v Burrell [1997] IRLR 200 EAT
- Polkey v A E Dayton Services Ltd [1988] ICR 142 HL
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.