Mr A. Jeganathan v Westfield (T) Hairdressing Limited t/a Toni & Guy — 2022

The claimant, employed since August 2011 and later promoted to Art/Style Director, was told at the 10 December 2020 consultation meeting that his position was now redundant. The tribunal found that this was a clear communication that his employment had ended with immediate effect, and that the meeting also referred to notice pay, redundancy pay and outstanding furlough pay as part of the claimant's entitlement. The redundancy confirmation letter dated 11 December 2020, the P45 showing a leaving date of 10 December 2020, and the later email of 1 February 2021 were found to confirm that termination date.

Applying section 97(1)(b) ERA 1996, the tribunal held that the effective date of termination was 10 December 2020. That meant the unfair dismissal, notice pay and holiday pay claims had to be presented by 9 March 2021. The tribunal rejected the claimant's case that he only understood he had been dismissed on 18 May 2021, and it found it was reasonably practicable to present the claims in time. In reaching that conclusion it referred to the statutory time-limit provisions and to Marks & Spencer plc v Williams-Ryan, Machine Tool Industry Research Association v Simpson, Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances Ltd and Wall's Meat Co Ltd v Khan.

The unlawful deduction from wages complaint concerned furlough pay for September to December 2020. The tribunal recorded the respondent's position that it had calculated the furlough pay due and transferred the net amount to the claimant's solicitors, and the claimant later said he no longer wished to pursue that claim, so it was dismissed upon withdrawal. The redundancy payment claim was found to be in time because early conciliation began on 6 June 2021 within the six-month limit. The tribunal refused the respondent's strike out and deposit applications, holding that the claimant had more than little reasonable prospect of showing that his week's pay for redundancy purposes should be calculated on a basis higher than the National Minimum Wage figure used by the respondent; no substantive entitlement or award was decided at this hearing.