(Day 1 am only Mr W Brown solicitor); then Claimant For the v Respondent — 2020

The claimant's section 103A ERA 1996 protected disclosure dismissal claim was withdrawn after her solicitor confirmed during the hearing that it was no longer being pursued. The tribunal found the withdrawal clear, unequivocal and unambiguous, refused to reopen it when the claimant later objected, and dismissed the claim under rule 52.

On race discrimination, the tribunal accepted that the claimant had originally been expected to transfer into the respondent's team, but found that the later decision not to do so and the redundancy dismissal were not materially influenced by race. It found the relevant reasons were the friction between the claimant and the asbestos specialists and the absence of a CMIOSH qualification, and it did not accept the claimant's comparator and collusion arguments.

The tribunal held that the effective date of termination was 24 April 2019 because dismissal is effective when communicated. On that basis it found the claimant was entitled to sick pay and employer pension contributions for 17-24 April 2019, and that unpaid employer pension contributions for December 2018 to 16 April 2019 transferred to the respondent under TUPE because the Scottish Widows arrangement was a personal pension scheme outside regulation 10.

Parts of the pay claim for the consultation period, holiday pay, car allowance, health insurance, one week's arrears and four weeks' notice pay were withdrawn. The tribunal also found that the GBP 3,430.80 payment described by the respondent as an overpayment was not an overpayment once the termination date was corrected, and it directed a remedy hearing because the pay and pension evidence was incomplete and the successful heads were not yet quantified.