Mrs Lauren Flintoft v Pamol Ltd — 2021

The claimant, Mrs Lauren Flintoft, worked at Boozeville from 1 March 2017. The business transferred to Pamol Ltd on 11 February 2020. The tribunal found that TUPE applied, that the claimant’s contract continued with the transferee under reg. 4 TUPE 2006, and that her continuous employment therefore started on 1 March 2017. The claimant’s holiday pay claim was withdrawn at the hearing.

The main factual dispute was whether the claimant resigned on 13 July 2020 or was dismissed. The tribunal preferred the claimant’s evidence and the contemporaneous text messages and letter trail, and found that she was dismissed by the respondent, with dismissal taking effect on 15 July 2020. It rejected the respondent’s version that she had resigned or left the premises in a way that ended her employment. The tribunal also found that the incidents discussed on 13 July 2020 did not amount to misconduct or a breach of contract.

On liability, the tribunal held that the respondent had not proved a potentially fair reason for dismissal under s.98 ERA 1996. It rejected conduct and redundancy as the true reason, and it did not accept the claimant’s late s.104 ERA 1996 argument because the tribunal found that no actual infringement of a relevant statutory right had been alleged in the required sense. The dismissal was therefore unfair. The tribunal also found the dismissal to be wrongful because the claimant had not fundamentally breached her contract of employment.

On remedy, the tribunal awarded a basic award of £266 and a compensatory award of £7,414. It added a 25% ACAS uplift of £1,853.50 because the dismissal letter referred to rule breaches but there had been no proper investigation, disciplinary meeting, notice of dismissal, or appeal. It also increased the award by £532 under s.38 Employment Act 2002 for the respondent’s failure to provide written particulars following the transfer. The total monetary award was £10,065.50, and the prescribed element was £3,591.