Case 2207097/2020 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 2207097/2020
- Decision date
- 16 September 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Pearl Dated
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant had worked for the respondent since March 2005 and had been promoted to Store Manager the following year. The tribunal found that the business, a small specialist shoe retailer, experienced a substantial downturn after the first Covid-19 lockdown, with online sales falling from £310,000 in the comparable period in 2019 to £78,000 between 23 March and 15 June 2020, and turnover from January to August 2020 falling to £567,814 from £1,060,534 the year before. After reopening, the junior assistants returned from furlough but the claimant remained furloughed, and Mr Merikhy concluded that he could absorb the claimant's managerial duties himself.
Applying s.139 ERA 1996 and the authorities in Safeway v Burrell and Murray v Foyle Meats, the tribunal held that there was a genuine redundancy situation because the requirement for an employee to carry out work of the claimant's kind, namely Store Manager duties, had ceased. It found that redundancy was the sole reason for dismissal. Although the claimant later suggested that age may have been a factor, the tribunal recorded that this was not part of the pleaded case and found no other reason or motive for the dismissal.
On fairness, the tribunal held that the consultation exercise was genuine and adequate, that the claimant was invited to suggest alternatives, and that she did not identify any alternative role. It also considered the point that the furlough scheme was extended before the notice period expired, referring to Stacey v Babcock Power Limited, but concluded that the underlying redundancy remained, that retaining the claimant would still have carried cost, and that the respondent acted within the range of reasonable responses. The tribunal further found that it was reasonable for Mr Merikhy to hear the appeal himself in a very small business and that he did so impartially. The unfair dismissal claim therefore failed, and the claimant's monetary claims in contract and for unauthorised deductions from wages also failed and were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and that the dismissal was fair under s.98(4) ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal dismissed the claimant's monetary claims in contract together with the other monetary claims and made no separate award. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal dismissed the claimant's monetary claims for unauthorised deductions from wages and made no separate award. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- s.139 ERA 1996
- Safeway v Burrell
- Murray v Foyle Meats
- s.98(1) ERA 1996
- s.98(2) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- Stacey v Babcock Power Limited
- range of reasonable responses
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.