Mr L Betchley of Counsel For v Respondent — 2022

The claimant brought unfair dismissal, holiday pay and bonus claims, and the judgment records that her whistleblowing and redundancy payment complaints had already been withdrawn at a preliminary hearing on 28 June 2021 and dismissed upon withdrawal. The merits hearing therefore addressed unfair dismissal, holiday pay and the June 2020 bonus issue.

On unfair dismissal, the tribunal accepted the respondent’s evidence that the reason for dismissal was redundancy arising from a significant pandemic-related fall in income, pressure from the bank and advice from the accountant to restructure the practice. It nevertheless held that the dismissal was unfair under section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 because the respondent did not act reasonably in the circumstances, including by failing to consider the flexible furlough scheme as an alternative to dismissal.

The tribunal noted that after the claimant went on leave, the respondent used temporary agency staff and later appointed a Practice Coordinator in March 2021 on a salary of £48,000 per annum, compared with the claimant’s pre-bonus salary of £43,656. It also held that if flexible furlough had been considered, the claimant would more likely than not have worked part-time during the period when agency staff were used and later have resumed full-time work.

On holiday pay, the tribunal accepted that the claimant did some work on four days of annual leave but found the evidence too vague to justify a full day’s pay for each day, so it held that one day’s holiday pay was due. On the bonus issue, it found that the £2,000 June bonus had become part of the claimant’s remuneration after the 2018 salary negotiations and that non-payment in June 2020 was a contractual breach; the claimant was entitled to £2,000 gross for that breach. The tribunal did not hear remedy evidence and directed the parties to try to agree remedy, with liberty to apply for a short remedy hearing if needed.