Mr M Choudhury v Castleplus Limited — 2020

Mr M Choudhury transferred to Castleplus Limited under TUPE on 1 September 2018 and worked as building manager for the Relay Building. The respondent said it reviewed the role and proposed that it be removed in favour of a head-office based Estates Manager role. It issued redundancy warning letters in March 2019, held consultation, and dismissed the claimant on 12 April 2019. The tribunal found the reason for dismissal was redundancy and applied the s.98(4) ERA 1996 fairness test together with the Compair Maxam guidance on consultation and alternative employment.

The harassment claim based on race and/or religion was dismissed. The tribunal found the January 2019 request for contract information was answered, that the draft contract error about continuity of employment was standard drafting used for transferred staff, and that there was no evidence connecting those matters or the dismissal to race or religion. Applying the Equality Act 2010 harassment definition and the Igen/Madarassy burden-of-proof approach, it concluded that the claimant had not shown facts from which discrimination could properly be inferred.

On unfair dismissal, the tribunal held that consultation was reasonable, the claimant had time to respond, and the respondent reasonably created a single-person pool because he held a unique role. It found one procedural failing: the respondent should have offered the Estates Manager role as suitable alternative employment, rather than only inviting the claimant to apply. However, the tribunal also found that the claimant would probably have refused that role even if it had been offered, so any compensatory loss fell away under the Polkey principle. Because statutory redundancy pay had already been paid, no basic award was due, and the only award was £500 for loss of statutory rights.

The contractual claims were split into several heads. The tribunal found breaches in relation to life assurance/death in service, accident insurance, unpaid pension contributions, and private medical insurance specified as Aviva cover, but no recoverable loss arose from those breaches. It rejected the claims for a 3% pay rise and bonus because the pay rise was not guaranteed and the bonus was discretionary. It also dismissed the holiday pay claim, finding that all monies due for untaken leave had been paid.

The respondent's counterclaim succeeded in part. The tribunal found that after leaving employment the claimant deleted the respondent's email facility, causing loss in the form of a new domain name cost of £144, but it was not satisfied that the additional £480 IT cost was proved. It therefore ordered the claimant to pay £144 to the respondent.