Case 3311048/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Matthew Dorrough v Asme Engineering Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 3311048/2020
- Decision date
- 16 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dick Representation
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Matthew Dorrough
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMatthew Dorrough was employed by Asme Engineering Ltd as a project manager and was furloughed from 30 March 2020. The tribunal found that, in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, the respondent's need for project-management work had diminished significantly and that the directors decided to close the claimant's department after taking other cost-cutting measures. The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed because the tribunal found redundancy was the reason for dismissal, the consultation process was fair, and there was no realistic alternative role for the claimant at the time.
On the notice-period pay claim, the tribunal held that the furlough agreement in the letter of 31 March 2020 amended the contract by agreement so that the claimant was entitled to the furlough rate of £2,500 per month while furloughed, including during his notice period. It also held that the Employment Rights Act 1996 (Coronavirus, Calculation of a Week's Pay) Regulations 2020 did not apply because the claimant's contractual notice period was one month, which was more than one week longer than his statutory notice period. The claim for an unauthorised deduction from wages was therefore dismissed.
The holiday pay and redundancy pay claims were withdrawn. Holiday pay was withdrawn after the respondent identified top-up payments that brought the relevant bank holiday and accrued holiday days up to the contractual rate, and redundancy pay was withdrawn after it was agreed that the redundancy payment had been made in the correct amount. The respondent conceded liability for unpaid overtime in 2019 and for one unpaid day identified as an unpaid-absence deduction on the 31 March 2020 payslip, and the tribunal awarded the agreed gross sums of £348.55 and £192.31 respectively.
The claimant also succeeded on the claim that the respondent had failed to provide written particulars of the change in salary and role around January 2020. The tribunal rejected the respondent's argument that payslips were enough to satisfy that duty, found a breach of the statutory obligation to provide updated particulars, and made an additional award under s.38 Employment Act 2002. Because the weekly rate exceeded the statutory cap, the award was £1,088, being two weeks at the capped rate of £544 per week.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the dismissal was by reason of redundancy after a genuine reduction in project-management work during the pandemic, with consultation and consideration of alternatives; the other reasons suggested by the claimant were rejected. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | This was the notice-period pay claim. The tribunal held the furlough agreement of 31 March 2020 amended the contract, the furlough rate applied during notice, and no unauthorised deduction was made. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | Withdrawn after the parties agreed the redundancy payment had been made in the correct amount. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Holiday pay | This covered bank holiday pay and holiday pay during furlough. It was withdrawn after the respondent showed the claimant had received top-up payments bringing those days up to the contractual rate. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Breach of contract claim for 14.5 hours' overtime in 2019. Liability was conceded and damages were awarded by consent in the agreed gross amount. | Upheld | — | £349 |
| Breach of contract | Breach of contract claim for the unpaid-absence deduction shown on the 31 March 2020 payslip. Liability was conceded and damages were awarded by consent in the agreed gross amount. |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,629
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
11 references- s.98 ERA 1996
- s.139 ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- Iceland Frozen Foods band of reasonable responses test
- Williams and ors v Compair Maxam Ltd guidelines
- Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd
- s.13 ERA 1996
- Agarwal v Cardiff University
- Cleeve Link Ltd v Bryla
- James W Cook and Co (Wivenhoe) Ltd v Tipper
- s.38 Employment Act 2002
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.