Case 3305431/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs R Khamar v PIE Pharma Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 3305431/2022
- Decision date
- 12 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge A.M.S. Green
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs R Khamar
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs R Khamar had worked for PIE Pharma Limited since 5 June 2000 in the labelling staff/warehouse team. The tribunal accepted that there was a genuine redundancy situation caused by reduced work in the respondent’s business, but it found that the dismissal itself was unfair within s.98(4) ERA 1996. The respondent had decided to make redundancies in December 2021, and the 14 February 2022 meeting and letter were treated as a fait accompli rather than a genuine warning and consultation process.
The tribunal found the selection exercise to be unreasonable. The respondent said it relied on attendance, performance, understanding and experience, but the spreadsheet used different criteria and the claimant and other affected employees were not consulted about the criteria in advance. The tribunal held that criteria such as understanding, aptitude, performance and productivity were too subjective for a business that did not run a formal appraisal system, and it noted that the claimant was not given her scores until the hearing bundle was disclosed.
The tribunal also found that the respondent did not take reasonable steps to find suitable alternative employment. There was no meaningful discussion of alternatives after 14 February 2022, no vacancies were advertised, and the claimant’s suggestion of reduced hours did not lead to any real consideration. In light of those defects, the dismissal was not within the range of reasonable responses. The tribunal made no Polkey deduction, finding it likely that the claimant would not have been dismissed if a fair process had been followed.
On remedy, the tribunal awarded compensation only. It made no basic award because the claimant had already received a statutory redundancy payment. It assessed the compensatory award at £2,616.71, made up of loss of earnings, pension loss and loss of statutory rights, with the award subject to recoupment because the claimant had received Job Seeker’s Allowance. The prescribed element was £2,116.71 and the balance payable to the claimant was £500.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the redundancy dismissal was unfair under s.98(4) ERA 1996 because the claimant was not adequately warned or consulted, the selection criteria were not objective, and no reasonable steps were taken to look for suitable alternative employment. No basic award was made because the claimant had already received a statutory redundancy payment. | Upheld | — | £2,617 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,617
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £2,617
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
6 references- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- Williams and ors v Compair Maxam Ltd
- Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd
- Rowell v Hubbard Group Services Ltd
- Mogane v Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
- Norton Tool Co Ltd v Tewson
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.