Case 2502189/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B Twentyman & Others v AM Fabrication (Norther) Ltd (In Administration) — 2021
- Case reference
- 2502189/2020
- Decision date
- 15 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Martin Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr B Twentyman & Others
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningFive claimants pursued unfair dismissal and related money claims against AM Fabrication (Northern) Limited, which was in administration and did not attend the hearing. The tribunal accepted that the respondent had taken pension contributions from some claimants without paying them over, and that during furlough it paid only basic pay rather than average wages including overtime. It also accepted evidence that the away-from-home working arrangement of 12 hours less half an hour for lunch had been in place since 2001 and had not been changed after the business was taken over in 2016.
For Mr Twentyman, Mr Howe, Mr G Trueman and Mr L Shield, the tribunal found that the reason for dismissal was conduct rather than redundancy, but held the dismissals unfair because the respondent had not carried out a reasonable investigation, had no reasonable grounds to believe gross misconduct had occurred, and gave no meeting or effective appeal. The dismissals followed suspension on 9 October 2021 and dismissal letters on 11 October 2021 after the claimants claimed the customary 12 hours on the Slough project. Awards were made of £15,785.00 to Mr Twentyman, £17,784.64 to Mr Howe, £12,809.68 to Mr G Trueman and £10,559.06 to Mr L Shield, with separate notice pay awards of £5,376.00 and £5,765.76 to Mr Twentyman and Mr Howe respectively.
Mr Potter resigned on 11 October 2021 because furlough payments were late or incorrect and pension deductions were not paid over. Applying s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996 and Western Excavating, the tribunal found a fundamental breach and held that he was entitled to resign, so his dismissal complaint succeeded on a constructive dismissal basis. The tribunal also upheld unlawful deduction from wages claims for Mr Howe (£6,730.44), Mr G Trueman (£6,630.32), Mr L Shield (£5,572.48) and Mr Potter (£5,244.87), reflecting unpaid pension contributions and furlough underpayments. The total monetary awards set out in the judgment came to £99,685.63.
Claims and outcomes
11 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | First claimant, Mr B Twentyman; dismissal over the Slough project hours claims was found unfair because the respondent had no reasonable grounds after no reasonable investigation, and gave no meeting or appeal. | Upheld | — | £15,785 |
| Breach of contract | First claimant, Mr B Twentyman; notice pay. | Upheld | — | £5,376 |
| Unfair dismissal | Second claimant, Mr D Howe; dismissal for conduct was found unfair for lack of a reasonable investigation and fair procedure. | Upheld | — | £17,785 |
| Breach of contract | Second claimant, Mr D Howe; notice pay. | Upheld | — | £5,766 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Second claimant, Mr D Howe; unpaid pension contributions and furlough underpayments from April 2020. | Upheld | — | £6,730 |
| Unfair dismissal | Third claimant, Mr G Trueman; dismissal over the claimed hours was found unfair. | Upheld | — | £12,810 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Third claimant, Mr G Trueman; unpaid pension contributions and furlough shortfall. |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £99,686
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £36,062
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £28,304
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
9 references- s.98(1) ERA 1996
- s.98(2) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996
- s.13(1) ERA 1996
- s.13(3) ERA 1996
- Article 3 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction Order 1994
- British Home Stores Limited v Burchell
- Western Excavating ECC Limited v Sharp
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.