Mrs J Elliot v Sam Turner & Sons Limited — 2023

Mrs J Elliot was employed by Sam Turner & Sons Limited as Café Manager at the Northallerton store from 31 October 2005 until her dismissal with effect from 7 February 2023. The tribunal found that the principal reason for dismissal was redundancy within section 139(1) ERA 1996. It accepted that concerns had been raised internally about the claimant after the Christmas night out and about her return to work, but found those matters were not the reason or principal reason for dismissal.

Applying section 98(4) ERA 1996 and the Polkey principles, the tribunal rejected most of the claimant's complaints about pooling, consultation and the appeal process. It found that the respondent had genuinely applied its mind to the Northallerton and Piercebridge café manager roles, that the assistant manager roles did not need to be pooled with the claimant, and that the consultation generally gave enough information about why her duties had been absorbed by others. It also found that the use of video and then audio consultation, and the absence of a companion at the first two meetings, fell within the band of reasonable responses.

The tribunal identified one material procedural flaw: the respondent failed to consider the advertised full-time clothing sales assistant vacancy at the Northallerton store as an alternative to redundancy. It found that a reasonable employer would have checked that vacancy and discussed it with the claimant during consultation and on appeal. On a Polkey assessment, it held there was a 66.7% chance she would have been dismissed in any event and a 33.3% chance she would have taken the role.

Remedy was therefore limited. The claimant's basic award of £14,275 was extinguished by the redundancy payment already made. The compensatory award was calculated at £560.28, comprising £393.61 for past loss and £166.67 for loss of statutory rights, with no future loss and no ACAS uplift. The complaint of unlawful deduction of wages and/or other payments was dismissed because it was not pursued, and the recoupment regulations did not apply because the claimant had not received state benefits.