Case 2501910/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Porter v Paul Pybus Scaffolding Limited Heard: Remotely (by video link) — 2021
- Case reference
- 2501910/2020
- Decision date
- 5 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Shore Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Porter
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Mr Porter was unfairly dismissed for redundancy. It held that the dismissal was unfair because the respondent did not operate a fair redundancy procedure, although it also found that if a fair procedure had been followed the claimant would still have been dismissed after a two-week consultation period. The claimant was found not to have contributed to his dismissal, so no deduction was made for contributory conduct.
The compensatory award for unfair dismissal comprised £669.40 for loss of earnings from 27 June 2020 to 10 August 2020, reflecting the extra two weeks for consultation, and £350.00 for future loss of the statutory right to protection against unfair dismissal and redundancy, producing £1,019.40 in total. The tribunal recorded that no basic award was payable because the redundancy payment awarded below had to be set off against any basic award, and it said the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996 did not apply.
On the remaining claims, the week-in-hand unlawful deduction of wages failed. The claim for notice pay succeeded by consent and the respondent was ordered to pay £163.80 gross. The claim for non-payment of holiday pay also succeeded by consent, with £168.00 gross for accrued holiday pay and £63.00 gross for bank holiday pay, a total of £231.00 gross. The tribunal also awarded redundancy pay of £409.50 and allowed the respondent's employer's contract claim, requiring the claimant to pay £128.50, which the tribunal said could be set off against the claimant's awards.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed for redundancy; tribunal found the dismissal unfair because the respondent did not operate a fair redundancy procedure. No contributory conduct was found. | Upheld | — | £1,019 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for week in hand failed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Claim for failure to pay the proper sum of notice succeeded by consent. | Upheld | — | £164 |
| Holiday pay | Claim for non-payment of holiday pay succeeded by consent; £168.00 for accrued holiday pay and £63.00 for bank holiday pay, both at the 80% furlough rate. | Upheld | — | £231 |
| Redundancy | Redundancy payment awarded at two weeks' gross pay of £409.50 per week x 0.5. | Upheld | — | £410 |
| Breach of contract | Respondent's employer's contract claim succeeded; the tribunal directed that this sum could be set off against the claimant's awards. | Upheld | — | £129 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,695
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £0
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £1,019
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.