In person For the v Agricultural Industries Ltd — 2021

The claimant worked for the respondent as a landscape gardener from 1 February 2016 until his dismissal on 29 May 2020. He was placed on furlough in or about March 2020. On 3 May 2020 the respondent asked him to return to work, but the tribunal found that the respondent then refused to pay him for 13 days. The claimant said he was concerned about working because of his young daughter, who was ill, and the tribunal accepted that the respondent knew of the daughter's condition.

The tribunal found that the claimant later told the respondent he could return to work, and on 29 May 2020 he attended a meeting at Mr Cattaneo's home about pay. The respondent offered half pay, an altercation occurred, and Mr Cattaneo accepted that he "lost his cool" and used foul language. The tribunal found that the meeting was not properly convened, that the respondent was holding the claimant's wages to try to "do a deal", and that the claimant was dismissed on the spot without any opportunity to respond, without a dismissal letter, and without a right of appeal. The redundancy payment claim was withdrawn by the claimant.

The unfair dismissal claim was upheld. The tribunal held that the respondent had not established conduct as the reason for dismissal, and that even if conduct had been shown the process breached section 98(4) ERA 1996 because no representations were heard. It accepted the respondent was a small business, but said there was no excuse for the way the claimant had been treated. The claim for unauthorised deduction of wages was also upheld because the respondent had no right to deprive the claimant of wages under section 13 ERA 1996.

The judgment also recorded an agreed entitlement to holiday pay for 20% of 4 days and 100% of 0.7 day, with the sum to be agreed and paid, or determined at the remedy hearing if not agreed. A half-day remedy hearing by CVP was ordered, but no final monetary award was made in the liability judgment.