Case 2409499/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Roberts v Signet Trading Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2409499/2020
- Decision date
- 16 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Holmes REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Roberts
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr M Roberts, had worked for Signet Trading Ltd since 1 August 2005 and was the manager of the Ernest Jones store in the Millgate Shopping Centre, Bury. The respondent decided in May 2020 to close that store and dismissed him for redundancy with effect from 1 June 2020. The tribunal accepted that there was a redundancy situation within s.139(1)(a)(ii) ERA 1996 and that redundancy was the principal reason for dismissal.
The dismissal was found to be unfair because the respondent did not carry out meaningful consultation at a formative stage about which of the two Bury stores should close, and did not consult properly about the pool of employees from which redundancies would be drawn. The claimant was told only in generic terms that the store was closing, was given FAQ documents that did not explain why the Ernest Jones store had been selected, and his query about that point was not taken up with senior management. The tribunal was not satisfied that pooling had been considered before dismissal, and it regarded the later pooling document as post-event material that did not show that the issue had been addressed at the time.
On remedy, the tribunal found that if proper consultation had taken place the claimant would still have been dismissed for redundancy, but about two weeks later. It therefore awarded compensation equivalent to two weeks' pay, agreed at £893.92, as the compensatory award only. No basic award was made because the claimant had already received a redundancy payment, the tribunal rejected any contributory conduct reduction, and it stated that the recoupment regulations applied. The claimant's other claims were withdrawn and dismissed upon withdrawal, and the judgment records an agreement on the unpaid pension contribution issue.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Held unfair because the respondent did not carry out meaningful consultation at a formative stage about the closure of the Bury Ernest Jones store or the decision not to pool the claimant with staff at the H Samuel store opposite. The tribunal applied a Polkey reduction and limited compensation to two weeks' pay. | Upheld | — | £894 |
| Breach of contract | The reasons record that an agreement was reached in relation to unpaid pension contributions and that the remaining contractual/tax point about notice pay was not pursued. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Withdrawn by the claimant; no substantive merits finding was made. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £894
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £894
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
15 references- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- s.139(1)(a)(ii) ERA 1996
- Williams v Compair Maxam Ltd
- Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd
- R v Gwent County Council ex parte Bryant
- King v Eaton Ltd
- Moon v Homeworthy Furniture (Northern) Ltd
- James W Cook & Co (Wivenhoe) Ltd v Tipper
- Foley v Post Office and Midland Bank v Madden
- Taymech v Ryan
- Capita Hartshead Ltd v Byard
- Samels v University of the Creative Arts
- Software 2000 v Andrews
- Willoughby v CF Capital plc
- s.123(6) ERA 1996
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.