Miss C Huggins v & others Croma Vigilant (Scotland) Ltd — 2019

The claims by Miss C Huggins and the other remaining claimants were consolidated. The tribunal struck out the respondents' response under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 because Peninsula Business Services had not complied with the case management directions and the tribunal accepted that a fair liability hearing could not be conducted within the available listing. In consequence, the complaints of unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal were held well-founded; the holiday pay claims were not finally determined at this hearing and were adjourned.

At the remedies stage, the tribunal heard brief evidence from Mr Brady for the respondents and Mr Mann for the claimants. It accepted that the claimants genuinely wanted reinstatement and, on the material available, found it practicable to reinstate them. The tribunal made reinstatement orders for each claimant, including Mr Da Silva, and specified that back pay would cover the period from 28 December 2017 to reinstatement or 27 December 2019, less annual leave payments already received, third-party income and relevant state benefit. No quantified monetary figure was set in this decision.

On the separate question whether a section 207A uplift under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 could attach to arrears of pay under a reinstatement order, the tribunal held that it could not. It reasoned that re-employment and compensation are separate statutory regimes, that back pay under section 114 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 is specified rather than awarded, and that the authorities it referred to, including Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust v Laakkonen and O'Laoire v Jackel International Ltd, supported that distinction. The holiday pay claims and any outstanding remedies were adjourned to 6 February 2020.