Claimant v Crosfill & Archer Claims Ltd — 2021

The hearing was conducted remotely. The Respondent did not attend and had not filed an ET3 in time, so the tribunal proceeded on the Claimant's evidence. The judge recorded that the Claimant's evidence was candid and credible, and the Respondent was refused an adjournment. The tribunal found that the Claimant was dismissed on redundancy grounds on 16 October 2020 without prior consultation.

On the facts found, the Claimant had three years' service but was paid a redundancy payment calculated on four years' service, in the sum of £2,098.36. That exceeded the statutory minimum by £494. The tribunal also found that the Claimant had been paid for 128 holiday hours but had accrued 168 hours, leaving a 32-hour shortfall valued at £312 net, but that shortfall had been set off against the redundancy payment and the Claimant had agreed to that arrangement.

Applying section 98 ERA, the tribunal held that the Respondent had failed to establish the reason for dismissal or that it was a potentially fair reason, so the dismissal was unfair. No basic award was made because it was subsumed within the redundancy payment already received, and no compensatory award was made because the tribunal found the Claimant would have been dismissed in any event on redundancy grounds and had no provable loss of ongoing earnings.

The tribunal dismissed the unpaid holiday pay claim because the excess redundancy payment extinguished the shortfall. It upheld the breach of contract claim in respect of notice pay, finding that the Claimant should have had three weeks' notice but in fact had only 10 days, leaving 11 days unpaid at £80 per day. Judgment was entered for £880 on that claim, and the overall award recorded in the judgment was £880.