Case 2410496/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Hegarty v Penny Post Credit Union — 2023
- Case reference
- 2410496/2021
- Decision date
- 11 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dunlop Representation
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Hegarty
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Hegarty had been CEO of Voyager Alliance Credit Union and signed a contract on 19 October 2017 which the tribunal held was later adopted by the board when Mr Robertson met Mr Hegarty and Mr McDonald on 20 October 2017 and authorised the pay rise on the basis that a signed agreement was in place. The tribunal therefore found that the contractual notice term was 12 months for remedy purposes, although no final compensation figure was set in this liability judgment.
On the TUPE issue, the tribunal found that the redundancy decision taken on 3 March 2021 was driven by the respondent's serious financial difficulties and need to reduce costs, not by the proposed transfer to Transave. The transfer and redundancy were discussed at the same board meeting and Mr Robertson accepted making a comment that Transave would not want another CEO, but the tribunal held there was no sufficient link between the proposed transfer and the dismissal. The claim under Regulation 7(1) TUPE 2006 was dismissed.
The tribunal upheld the ordinary unfair dismissal claim under s.94 and s.98 ERA 1996. It found that the later disciplinary allegations about communications with the PRA, FCA, the Financial Ombudsman Service and ABCUL were not the genuine reason for dismissal, and that several of the matters had already been known to the board or were not sufficiently serious to justify dismissal. The tribunal found that the respondent had instead moved away from redundancy because of concern about the termination cost, including the possibility of 12 months' notice pay, and because the grievance had caused ill-feeling among board members.
For Polkey purposes, the tribunal found that Mr Hegarty would in any event have been fairly dismissed for redundancy on 9 April 2021. It found that he would have been entitled on that basis to a statutory redundancy payment and to 12 months' notice or payment in lieu of notice, but the amount of compensation was not fixed because it was left to a later remedy hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal under Regulation 7(1) TUPE 2006. The tribunal found the redundancy decision was driven by the respondent's financial position and cost-saving needs, not by the proposed transfer to Transave, so the TUPE claim failed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Ordinary unfair dismissal under s.94 and s.98 ERA 1996. The tribunal found misconduct was not the genuine reason for dismissal and that the respondent instead moved away from redundancy because of termination cost concerns, including the risk of 12 months' notice, and ill-feeling arising from the grievance. Compensation was left to a remedy hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- Regulation 7(1) TUPE 2006
- s.94 and s.98 ERA 1996
- range of reasonable responses
- Polkey principles
- actual or ostensible authority
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.