Case 3305835/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Gibson v Delice de France Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 3305835/2021
- Decision date
- 21 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Price Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Gibson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Gibson was employed by Delice de France Limited from 11 July 2016 and was placed on furlough during the COVID-19 related redundancy exercise. Holiday pay was agreed during the hearing at £654, and the tribunal recorded that he no longer pursued claims relating to a company car and pension contributions. It later dismissed his separate request for payment or compensation for delay in the holiday pay, finding there was no statutory power to award interest and no evidence of additional loss.
On redundancy pay, the tribunal accepted that there was a genuine redundancy situation, but it found that the claimant was offered and accepted a new role on different terms from 2 July 2020. Applying section 138 ERA 1996, it held that this was a re-engagement on new terms and that the claimant was not dismissed by reason of redundancy. The tribunal found that he started work in the new role on 2 November 2020 and resigned on 1 December 2020, which was outside the four-week trial period, so no redundancy payment was due, although the claim had been presented in time and would have been just and equitable if a payment had been owing.
The protective award complaint failed both on time limits and on the merits. The tribunal found that the last dismissal to which the complaint related took effect on 7 November 2020, so the claim was not presented within three months. In any event, it held that the first dismissal took effect on 2 August 2020, 45 days after employee representatives were elected on 27 May 2020, so the statutory consultation period was met. It rejected the submission that the selection matrix dated 25 May 2020 showed a breach of sections 188 or 188A TULRCA 1992.
The tribunal also dismissed the breach of contract and unlawful deduction claims. By the end of the hearing the live issue was notice pay only, and the tribunal found that the claimant had been paid the one month's notice due under his revised terms. The top-line judgment therefore recorded no redundancy payment, no unlawful deduction from wages, no protective award, and dismissal of the breach of contract claim, with only the agreed holiday pay sum awarded.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | Agreed during the hearing. The tribunal later dismissed the claimant's separate request for interest or compensation for delay in payment of the holiday pay. | Settled | — | £654 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was re-engaged on new terms under section 138 ERA 1996, started work in the new role on 2 November 2020, and resigned on 1 December 2020 outside the trial period, so no redundancy payment was owing. It said the claim had been made in time and would have been just and equitable if a payment had been due. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Top-line judgment recorded this claim as not well founded. The live dispute at the end of the hearing concerned notice pay, and the tribunal held the claimant had been paid the one month's notice due under his revised terms. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Protective award complaint under sections 188, 188A and 189 TULRCA 1992. The tribunal held the claim was out of time because the last dismissal to which it related took effect on 7 November 2020, and in any event found that the 45-day consultation period was met and no breach of sections 188 or 188A was shown. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The breach of contract claim concerned notice pay after the claimant withdrew the car and pension elements. The tribunal held that one month's notice had been paid and dismissed the claim. | Dismissed | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £654
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
6 references- s.138 ERA 1996
- s.139 ERA 1996
- s.164 ERA 1996
- s.188 TULRCA 1992
- s.188A TULRCA 1992
- s.189 TULRCA 1992
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.