Case 1405946/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Gordon Sackett v ISS Mediclean Ltd t/a ISS Facility Services — 2021
- Case reference
- 1405946/2020
- Decision date
- 30 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Housego Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Gordon Sackett
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Sackett had worked for Carillion since 2013 as facilities manager for Land Registry sites. After the Respondent took over the contract in March 2018, he was paid £35,600. In early 2020 Mr Murphy reorganised the business and told Mr Sackett that his role was at risk of redundancy, while inviting him to apply for Regional Facilities Manager South West. The tribunal found that the Weymouth site had only been added back into the portfolio, that the geography was otherwise unchanged, and that the salary range for the new role included Mr Sackett's salary.
Applying s.98(4) ERA 1996, the tribunal held that the dismissal was not in truth a redundancy because the Respondent's need for someone to do Mr Sackett's work had not ceased or diminished. It found there was no evidence of a materially different requirement for budgetary expertise or client management, and no evidence that suitable alternative employment had been actively sought. The appeal was also found unfair: after the appeal hearing Mr Brooks spoke to Mr Murphy and relied on a briefing note and information not put to Mr Sackett, which affected the outcome. The tribunal described the dismissal as a disguised capability dismissal rather than a redundancy.
On remedy, the tribunal rejected Mr Sackett's broader revised schedule of loss and found no basis for injury to feelings or distress. It held that the basic award was extinguished by the redundancy payment and limited compensation to the period before he found other employment, together with a conventional sum for loss of statutory industrial rights. The ordered payment was £2,554.34.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the dismissal was not redundancy and was unfair. The award was not split in the order, but the reasons state that the basic award was extinguished by the redundancy payment and compensation was limited to £2,054.34 loss of earnings plus £500 for loss of statutory industrial rights. | Upheld | — | £2,554 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,554
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £0
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £2,554
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
8 references- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- s.139 ERA 1996
- Sainsburys Supermarkets Ltd v Hitt
- Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd
- Royal Mail Group Ltd v Jhuti
- s.123 ERA 1996
- s.207A TULR(C)A 1992
- ACAS Code of Practice 1 on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures
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.