Mr Martin Phillips MBE (lay representative) For the v T Symes — 2023

Leon Crosskey worked as a boatman for Trevor Symes from 1 June 2007. After furlough and sickness absence, he texted at the end of November 2022 that his doctor had said he was fit to return to work. On 4 December 2022 the respondent replied by text, "Sorry Leon there is no work I am on the verge of packing up." The respondent did not submit an ET3 or attend the final hearing, and the tribunal proceeded in his absence.

The tribunal found that the 4 December 2022 text was the dismissal. It held the dismissal was unfair because the implied redundancy reason was not made out: on the claimant's unchallenged evidence, the respondent's business was still operating and the claimant's former duties were being done by a colleague in addition to that colleague's own work. Alternatively, even if redundancy had been the reason, the tribunal found there had been no adequate warning or consultation, so the redundancy process was unfair.

The tribunal also held the dismissal was wrongful. It found there was no express notice term, so section 86 ERA 1996 applied and, because the claimant had 16 years' service, he was entitled to 12 weeks' notice. As he was dismissed without notice, wrongful dismissal was made out. The tribunal further found that a grievance sent on 14 December 2022 was not dealt with, that the respondent unreasonably failed to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice, and that a 25% uplift of £2,121.11 was just and equitable. It also found no written statement of main terms had been provided and made a section 38 Employment Act 2002 award of £1,277.52. The judgment orders £10,441.42 for unfair dismissal, £3,832.56 for wrongful dismissal, £1,277.52 for the written-statement breach, and £2,121.11 as the ACAS uplift.