In Person v Respondent — 2021

At the closed preliminary hearing on 29 October 2020, the tribunal had already made a deposit order for the unfair dismissal, unlawful deductions and redundancy payment claims and directed the claimant to amend and particularise her age and disability discrimination complaints or confirm whether they were withdrawn. At the open preliminary hearing on 28 January 2021, the tribunal noted that the claimant was dyslexic and said reasonable adjustments had to be made, so she was given a further opportunity to explain the discrimination case after no amendment application had been received and a reminder letter had been sent on 21 December 2020.

On the unfair dismissal issue, the claimant accepted there was a genuine redundancy situation and did not dispute that her role as the only stable assistant to a sole employer was redundant. She complained about being told she was not needed, about the way the process was handled, and about the difference between the figure she said she had been told and the sum actually paid. Applying s.98(4) ERA 1996, the tribunal concluded that any consultation would likely have been futile in the circumstances, that no alternative work was identified, and that the unfair dismissal claim had no reasonable prospect of success.

The redundancy payment claim also had no reasonable prospect of success. The respondent said the statutory redundancy sum had been correctly calculated on 15 years' service and a weekly pay rate of £254.50, producing £3,400.80 paid on 14 August 2020. The tribunal found there was no contractual term entitling the claimant to an enhanced payment, so the alleged £34,000 figure was not enforceable on the material before it. The unlawful deductions complaint failed because the alleged failure to pay national insurance contributions was not 'wages' for ERA 1996 purposes and, in any event, the claim was time-barred under s.23 ERA 1996.

The age and disability discrimination complaints were struck out because the claimant did not provide a coherent factual basis for saying the dismissal was discriminatory. She variously referred to age, allergies, dyslexia and the respondent thinking she was slow, but did not set out particulars showing discriminatory treatment, and the tribunal found that these complaints were inconsistent with her acceptance that the post itself was redundant. The tribunal referred to the rule 37 strike-out test, the need for caution in discrimination cases, and the authorities it cited, but concluded that this was one of the rare cases where strike out was justified.