Jason Duffell v Prime Plumbing (Cambridge) Limited — 2021

Jason Duffell, a plumber employed by Prime Plumbing (Cambridge) Limited from 1 July 2014, was found to have been dismissed on 7 November 2019. The tribunal held that the 5 November 2019 text response, read with the follow-up messages about collecting the van, phone and paperwork and the employer’s conduct over the next few days, would have led a reasonable employee to understand that the employment had ended. The tribunal therefore found an express dismissal under section 95(1)(a) ERA 1996 and did not need to decide the alternative constructive dismissal case.

The tribunal accepted that the reason for dismissal related to conduct within section 98(2)(b) ERA 1996, namely the claimant’s short notice of absence and Mr Hill’s concerns about attendance and work quality. It nevertheless held that the dismissal was unfair under section 98(4) ERA 1996 because no investigation, disciplinary hearing, or appeal took place and there was no compliance with the ACAS Code of Practice. The tribunal reduced both the basic award and compensatory award by 25% for contributory conduct, declined to reduce compensation for mitigation, applied a 10% uplift for the respondent’s unreasonable failure to follow the ACAS Code, and then applied a 10% reduction for the claimant’s failure to appeal, which it said cancelled the uplift.

On remedy, the tribunal awarded a basic award of £1,837.50 and a compensatory award of £10,594.60, with a separate £980 award under section 38 Employment Act 2002 because the respondent had never provided written particulars of employment. That produced a total judgment sum of £13,412.10. The tribunal rejected the holiday pay claim because it found all accrued leave had been taken. It upheld the breach of contract claim in principle, because the claimant was not lawfully given summary dismissal, but made no separate damages award because the notice pay was included within the unfair dismissal compensation.