Case 2407360/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Crabtree v JPG Staff (UK) Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2407360/2021
- Decision date
- 1 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Batten
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Crabtree
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the claimant, Mr D Crabtree, was employed from 24 February 2020 and later transferred within the Emerald group before the respondent, JPG Staff (UK) Limited, took over the business. His contract provided for salary of £35,000, one month's notice, a commission arrangement at 3% of profit margin on new billable business, and a £300 car allowance. He was furloughed during part of 2020, and the tribunal accepted that he played a substantial role in introducing One Heritage business, but found no commission was payable because no profit was made on that work. It also rejected an alleged £300 bonus because no agreement to pay it was proved. The separate redundancy pay claim had already been struck out on 23 September 2021 because the claimant lacked two years' service.
Automatic unfair dismissal was dismissed. The tribunal found no evidence that the claimant was dismissed because he had asserted statutory rights about pension contributions or deductions from wages, and it rejected the suggestion that a complaint about commission caused the dismissal. It found that the relationship between the claimant and Mr Joseph had broken down, with performance concerns and dissatisfaction with pay and benefits forming the real background to the termination. The tribunal also found that the proposed redundancy arrangement of December 2020 did not take effect as an actual redundancy termination on 5 January 2021.
On unlawful deductions from wages, the tribunal rejected the furlough-top-up claim and the claimed deductions relating to commission and bonus. It found that the March 2020 pay position was not proved to be an unlawful deduction on the evidence, but held that an unexplained deduction of £495.04 from the claimant's final salary payment was unlawful. It also recorded that some employee pension contributions had not been paid into the scheme and that employer pension contributions were not paid, but held that non-payment of employer pension contributions was not a deduction from wages and was outside the tribunal's jurisdiction for that claim.
Wrongful dismissal succeeded. The tribunal held that the claimant should have been given one month's notice from the genuine termination date of 29 January 2021, so he was entitled to remain employed until 28 February 2021, not 5 February 2021. It ordered the respondent to pay £2,916.67 gross and also ordered payment of the car allowance and employer pension contribution for the period 20 January 2021 to 28 February 2021. The judgment also noted that the respondent was in insolvency administration and that payment of any award might be affected.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal under ss.104 and 105 ERA 1996 was dismissed. The tribunal found no evidence that the claimant was dismissed because he asserted statutory rights, and it rejected the redundancy-based ground. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Succeeded only in part: the tribunal held that an unexplained deduction of £495.04 from the claimant's final salary payment was unlawful. The remainder of the furlough, commission, bonus, March 2020 shortfall and pension-related complaints failed. | Upheld | — | £495 |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal held the claimant was entitled to one month's notice from 29 January 2021 to 28 February 2021 and had been wrongfully dismissed. It ordered payment of £2,916.67 gross, plus the car allowance and employer pension contribution for the notice period. | Upheld | — | £2,917 |
| Redundancy | This claim had been struck out at a preliminary hearing on 23 September 2021 because the claimant did not have the required two years' service. | Struck out | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,412
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
7 references- s.13 ERA 1996
- s.94 ERA 1996
- s.95(1) ERA 1996
- s.98 ERA 1996
- s.104 ERA 1996
- s.105 ERA 1996
- Somerset County Council v Chambers [2013] EAT 0417/12
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.