Case 1808695/2023 · Employment Tribunal
each in person For the v Rise 2 shine Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 1808695/2023
- Decision date
- 4 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge JM Wade
Parties
2 namedClaimant
each in person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThree claimants who cleaned supermarket refrigeration in the North of England for Rise 2 Shine Limited brought joined claims following events on or around 21 August 2023, when they were sent emails telling them they were 'stood down' and were then locked out of the respondent's Sage payslip system. The tribunal, sitting judge-alone with the respondent not in attendance and no explanation given, proceeded under Rule 47 having weighed the prejudice to the claimants of further delay against the prejudice to the respondent. The claimants' start dates were found to extend earlier than those on the ET1 forms because of repeated TUPE transfers from predecessor contractors.
The judge found that the stand-down emails, combined with the system lock-out and failure in communication, amounted to dismissals by the employer's conduct. The principal reason for dismissal was that the employer's need for employees to carry out cleaning work had diminished, but the respondent did not act reasonably in treating that reason as sufficient to dismiss in all the circumstances, including equity and the substantial merits of the case. The respondent also failed to pay holiday pay, wages and redundancy payments to which the claimants were entitled, and failed to give lawful notice.
Statutory redundancy payments, notice pay (mitigated by subsequent earnings), 4.2 weeks of accrued holiday pay, and arrears of pay for August 2023 were awarded to each claimant. A £500 compensatory award for loss of statutory rights was made in each case; no separate basic award was made as it was subsumed within the statutory redundancy payment. The recoupment regulations were noted as not applying.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Compensatory award of £500 for loss of statutory rights awarded to each of the three claimants. No basic award made as it was subsumed within the statutory redundancy payment. Reinstatement/re-engagement not sought. | Upheld | — | £500 |
| Redundancy | Statutory redundancy payments awarded to each claimant: Mr R McDonagh £4,322.75 (10.5 weeks); Mr D Keighley £4,613 (10 weeks); Mr P McDonagh £6,654 (15 weeks). Continuous service recognised across TUPE transfers from predecessor contractors. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Notice pay awarded for failure to give notice to lawfully terminate contracts, mitigated by subsequent employment: Mr R McDonagh £1,235.07 (3 weeks); Mr D Keighley £2,527.15 (5.5 weeks); Mr P McDonagh £5,323.20 (12 weeks). | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Arrears of pay for August 2023 (1.5 weeks each): Mr R McDonagh £617.53; Mr D Keighley £691.95; Mr P McDonagh £665.40. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Holiday pay for 4.2 weeks accrued and untaken under Regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998: Mr R McDonagh £1,729.09; Mr D Keighley £1,937.47; Mr P McDonagh £1,863.12. | Upheld | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Working Time Regulations claim resolved via the holiday pay award above (Regulation 14 WTR 1998). No separate quantum recorded. |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £33,680
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £1,500
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
7 references- Employment Rights Act 1996 Part II
- Employment Rights Act 1996 Part IX
- Employment Rights Act 1996 Part X
- Employment Rights Act 1996 Part XI
- Employment Rights Act 1996 Part XIV Chapter II
- Regulation 14 Working Time Regulations 1998
- Rule 47
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.