Case 2200394/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Corr v Eurocentres Global Language Learning Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2200394/2021
- Decision date
- 24 September 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Nicklin Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Corr
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Mr Corr’s dismissal was by reason of redundancy. It accepted that the respondent’s sales function had diminished in the pandemic and that all sales roles were put at risk, so there was no unfair selection of Mr Corr because he had raised a grievance or for any other ulterior motive.
It held that the redundancy consultation was fair in the circumstances. Mr Corr was invited to three consultation meetings, was told of his right to be accompanied and to appeal, and could raise questions and suggestions. The tribunal rejected the argument that the work later done by Mr Elrasheedy, or the later Senior Regional Sales Director role with Bayswater Education, showed that an alternative role was available to Mr Corr before his dismissal.
The unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed. The protective award claim was also dismissed because the tribunal found that the redundancies were carried out across five separate establishments, with fewer than 20 dismissals at each, so section 188 TULR(C)A was not triggered. The breach of contract claim succeeded: the tribunal found that Mr Corr had not been paid his full notice pay, contractual holiday pay or time off in lieu, and ordered £11,586.49 gross notice pay, £1,375.38 gross holiday pay and £1,943.10 gross for time off in lieu, together with a 15% uplift on the net notice pay only for unreasonable non-compliance with the ACAS grievance code.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the reason for dismissal was redundancy. It accepted that all sales roles were placed at risk during the pandemic, rejected the suggestion that Mr Corr was selected because he had lodged a grievance, and found the consultation process and search for alternatives to be fair. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal held that the claimant was wrongfully dismissed in breach of contract because he was not paid his full contractual notice entitlement. It also found sums due for contractual holiday pay and time off in lieu. The award identified in the judgment was £11,586.49 gross notice pay, £1,375.38 gross holiday pay and £1,943.10 gross time off in lieu; a 15% uplift on the net notice pay only was ordered for unreasonable failure to comply with the ACAS grievance code, but the exact uplift figure was not stated. | Upheld | — | £14,905 |
| Trade union | The tribunal held that section 188 TULR(C)A was not engaged because the redundancies were spread across five separate establishments and fewer than 20 employees were made redundant at each establishment within the relevant 90-day period, so no protective award could be made. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
10 references- section 98 ERA 1996
- section 98(4) ERA 1996
- section 139(1) ERA 1996
- Williams v Compare Maxam Ltd
- Polkey v A.E. Dayton Services Ltd
- Octavius Atkinson & Sons Ltd v Morris
- section 188 TULR(C)A
- USDAW and another v WW Realisation 1 Ltd
- Renfrewshire Council v Educational Institute of Scotland
- section 207A TULRCA
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.