Mr C Smith v Padbury Group Limited (in creditors’ voluntary liquidation) — 2020

Mr C Smith worked for Padbury Group Limited as a crew leader from 22 July 2013 until 24 January 2019. He had five years' service and was aged 28 at dismissal. The tribunal found that around 7 January 2019 he raised concerns that the systems and equipment for work at height were insufficient and unsafe. After he raised those concerns he was sent home, was left uncertain whether he had been dismissed or suspended, and was invited to a meeting on 11 January 2019 where the respondent did not engage constructively with his concerns, criticised his performance and behaviour, and proposed a revised contract or a move to the status of a "basic groundsman".

The tribunal found that on 23 January 2019 he was again instructed to climb at height without safe arrangements in place. He then resigned and claimed constructive dismissal. The judgment states that he was unfairly dismissed and awards a basic award of £2,540 and a compensatory award of £5,972. The basic award was calculated by reference to 5 x £508, being the maximum gross weekly pay at termination.

For the compensatory award, the tribunal used a net weekly wage of £445 and calculated past loss from 24 January 2019 to 11 February 2020 at £24,475, less earnings in new employment of £402 net per week for 50 weeks, leaving £4,375. It added future loss to 1 September 2020 at £44 per week, totalling £1,247, plus £350 for loss of statutory rights. The recoupment regulations did not apply. The claimant had obtained new employment from 26 February 2019.

The tribunal separately awarded £3,000 for injury to feelings arising from detrimental treatment contrary to sections 44C and 47B ERA 1996. It described that award as falling in the middle of the lower Vento band. The tribunal noted that the period of detrimental treatment was short, about two weeks, but that the claimant experienced stress, anxiety, and continuing loss of confidence after being sent home, left in uncertainty about his status, and criticised for raising health and safety concerns. The respondent was in creditors' voluntary liquidation and did not attend or represent itself at the hearing.