Mr Timothy Richard v J Stimler Ltd — 2022

Mr Timothy Richard was employed by J Stimler Ltd from 3 May 2013 until he was notified of redundancy by email on 30 October 2020. The tribunal accepted that the dismissal was for redundancy, in the context of a pandemic-related downturn and cost-cutting, but held that the dismissal was unfair under Part X of the Employment Rights Act 1996 because the respondent did not consult at a formative stage, did not give adequate information, did not allow adequate time to respond, and did not conscientiously consider the claimant's alternatives.

On selection, the tribunal found that the respondent had not set up or applied any fair objective system. It held that Andrew Stimler should have been included in the redundancy pool, that Ross Shapiro was an independent contractor and therefore not a pool member, but that the respondent should at least have considered reducing reliance on his company, and that Josh Burns was a further possible pool member whom the respondent had not properly considered at all. The tribunal concluded that there were no objective criteria justifying the claimant's selection and that the dismissal did not fall within the band of reasonable responses.

The claimant's unlawful deduction from wages claim also succeeded. The tribunal held that the 5 April 2020 furlough letter entitled him to 80% of his normal salary, but he was paid only £3,500 per month gross from April to September 2020 and £2,500 in October 2020, producing an underpayment of £6,831.33. It also awarded £1,088 for the failure to provide written particulars of employment, being two weeks' wages at the capped weekly rate of £544. The schedule of loss recorded a nil basic award because the redundancy payment already exceeded the basic award, and a total award of £59,414.84.