Case 3303731/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Ramus v Fleur C Douetil — 2019
- Case reference
- 3303731/2018
- Decision date
- 27 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anstis
- Venue
- Reading
- Panel members
- Mrs C M Carr, Mrs F Betts
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Ramus
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Busbridge Lakes was being restructured away from bird-keeping and breeding and towards revenue-generating activities, including events and weddings, in response to the estate's financial position after the death of the respondent's husband. The claimant's role had already been changed in 2015 from Curator/Manager to Bird Keeper and General Estate Management, but by June 2017 the respondent had decided to dismiss him and the reason given was redundancy linked to the reduced requirement for bird-care work and the increased need for marketing and computer-based duties.
On liability for unfair dismissal, the tribunal accepted that the dismissal was genuinely by reason of redundancy within s.139 ERA 1996 and therefore a potentially fair reason under s.98(1). However, it held that the dismissal was unfair because the claimant had not been warned that his job was at risk and there had been no consultation before the decision was announced at the 10 June 2017 meeting. The tribunal did not accept the claimant's arguments about a redundancy pool or selection criteria, but it did find the absence of consultation fatal to fairness under s.98(4).
On age discrimination, the tribunal considered the alleged age-related comments and the surrounding circumstances but rejected them as facts from which it could infer age discrimination. It did not accept that the alleged comments were made as alleged, found one to be ambiguous and another more likely to relate to illness rather than age, and concluded more generally that the claimant's age was not an effective cause of dismissal. The complaint of age discrimination was therefore dismissed.
On remedy, the tribunal said the claimant was not entitled to a basic award because he had already received a redundancy payment and s.122(4) ERA 1996 applied. It made a compensatory award only, limited by Polkey to the four-week period it considered proper consultation would have taken. The award was calculated by reference to four weeks of net pay, accommodation, and household bill contribution, producing a total compensatory award of £2,793.88.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissal was found to be by reason of redundancy and therefore a potentially fair reason under s.98(1) ERA 1996, but it was unfair because there was no warning or consultation with the claimant before the dismissal decision was announced. Compensation was limited to four weeks under Polkey, as the tribunal found a fair process would still have led to dismissal. | Upheld | — | £2,794 |
| Age discrimination | The tribunal rejected the alleged age-related comments or found them ambiguous or more likely to relate to health. It held that the claimant's age was not an effective cause of dismissal and that the surrounding facts did not justify an inference of age discrimination. | Dismissed | Age | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,794
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £2,794
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
7 references- s.98(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.139 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Polkey v AE Dayton Services Limited
- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.136 Equality Act 2010
- s.122(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
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.