Case 1801726/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms A Swift v National Business College Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 1801726/2020
- Decision date
- 13 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shepherd Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms A Swift
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Swift was employed from 22 February 2016 and her role was later redefined to Recruitment and Sales Officer. The respondent said its apprenticeship business had been affected by funding and reform changes, but the tribunal noted that the claimant had previously been criticised for missing targets and warned that disciplinary action could follow if targets were not met. The claimant also told the respondent on 21 October 2019 that she would undergo hip replacement surgery on 20 January 2020 and would be off work for about 8 to 12 weeks afterwards.
The tribunal found that the respondent had not established that the reason for dismissal was redundancy. It held that, at the time of dismissal, the respondent was still of the view that a full-time Levy sales role was needed and that the work had not ceased or diminished within section 139(1) ERA 1996. The tribunal found that the respondent's real concern was the claimant's performance and her imminent lengthy absence, not redundancy.
Even if redundancy had been the reason, the dismissal would have been unfair. There was no warning or fair consultation, no objective selection process, no consideration of suitable alternative employment, and the claimant was not given a meaningful appeal. The tribunal referred to the statutory framework in sections 98(1), 98(2), 98(4) and 139(1) ERA 1996, and to the guidance in Williams & Others v Compare Maxam Limited, Polkey v AE Dayton, and R v British Coal Corporation ex parte Price.
On remedy, the tribunal made no basic award because the claimant had received statutory redundancy pay. It awarded a compensatory award of £2,559.38 made up of £1,196.73 for three weeks' net pay, £862.65 for nine weeks' statutory sick pay from 20 January 2020 to 23 March 2020, and £500 for loss of statutory protection. The tribunal found that alternative employment had been obtained in December 2019 and that losses after 23 March 2020 were not caused by the dismissal, because the new job was delayed by the Covid-19 pandemic. The Employment Protection (Recoupment of Income Support and Jobseekers Allowance) Regulations 1996 applied, with a prescribed element of £862.65.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held the dismissal was not redundancy and was unfair. Basic award was nil because the claimant had received statutory redundancy pay; the compensatory award totalled £2,559.38, made up of loss of net pay, statutory sick pay, and £500 for loss of statutory protection. | Upheld | — | £2,559 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,559
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £0
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £2,559
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
7 references- s.98(1) and (2) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- s.139(1) ERA 1996
- Williams & Others v Compare Maxam Limited
- Polkey v AE Dayton
- R v British Coal Corporation and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry ex parte Price
- band of reasonable responses
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.