Mr R Rimal v BSS Associates Limited — 2021

The respondent did not attend the hearing and had filed no response. Mr Rimal had worked as a Senior Accountant from 1 March 2016 until 30 June 2021. The tribunal found that the P45 and the respondent's 30 June 2021 email amounted to a dismissal. Although the respondent had not explained the dismissal to the claimant or the tribunal, the tribunal inferred that the real reason was a belief in misconduct relating to client accounts. Because there had been no investigation, no disciplinary process, and no fair procedure, the tribunal held that the dismissal was unfair under s.98 ERA 1996 and applied a 25% ACAS uplift under s.207A TULCRA 1992.

The tribunal also upheld the complaint that the respondent unreasonably failed to provide written reasons for dismissal after Mr Rimal requested them on 30 June 2021. That attracted the mandatory two weeks' pay award under s.93 ERA 1996. It further found that the respondent had never provided a contract or written statement of particulars of employment, contrary to s.1 ERA 1996, and increased the statutory award to four weeks' pay under s.38 Employment Act 2002 because it was just and equitable to do so.

On the pay claims, the tribunal found that the claimant had not been paid 5.6 weeks' holiday pay on termination and had not been paid his June salary, so those sums were unlawful deductions from wages under s.13 ERA 1996. It also found that he was dismissed without notice and was entitled to five weeks' notice pay in damages for breach of contract. The unfair dismissal award was £36,664.76, made up of a basic award of £4,080 and a compensatory award of £32,584.76. Separate awards were made for holiday pay of £5,168.80, June salary of £4,000, and notice pay of £4,143.