Case 3314673/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Davies, Counsel For the v Respondent — 2021
- Case reference
- 3314673/2021
- Decision date
- 5 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Postle Appearances
- Venue
- Norwich
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Ms Davies, Counsel For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought claims of ordinary unfair dismissal, automatic unfair dismissal for making public interest and health and safety disclosures, detriment for protected disclosures under s.47B ERA 1996, and claims for holiday pay and unlawful deduction of wages. The respondent had decided in December 2020 to close the structural fabrication side of the business for viability reasons linked in part to the health issues of Mr Ford and Mr Standley, and told the workforce on 4 January 2021 that the structural fabrication part would close to new business from 31 January 2021.
The tribunal found that the redundancy exercise used a reasonable pool of six structural fabricators and a scoring matrix based on skill, quality, job knowledge, flexibility, attendance, time keeping and service. It accepted that the scoring was carried out independently, that the claimant scored second, and that the alternative Yard Person role would be offered to the highest scorer. The tribunal said the respondent could have given more warning and been more transparent about the scoring, but concluded that this would not have changed the outcome and that the dismissal was fair under s.98 ERA 1996 and s.98(4) ERA 1996.
On the disclosure claims, the tribunal accepted that the claimant had raised Covid safety concerns and that the disclosures were made in the public interest, but found no evidence of a causal link between those disclosures and the dismissal. It found the dismissal was for redundancy and that the same restructuring applied to four other employees. The detriment allegations also failed: the tribunal was not satisfied that being ignored, being put at risk of redundancy, the consultation process, or the scoring and selection exercise amounted to detriments for protected disclosures.
The judgment records that the holiday pay claim and the unlawful deduction of wages claim were settled during the proceedings in the sums of £576 and £422 respectively. The claimant had a right of appeal but did not exercise it.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Ordinary unfair dismissal claim under s.98 ERA 1996 dismissed; the tribunal found redundancy was the reason for dismissal and that the employer acted within the range of reasonable responses. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Automatic unfair dismissal claim pleaded under ss.103 and 100 ERA 1996 dismissed. The tribunal accepted that the claimant made qualifying public interest and health and safety disclosures, but found no causal link between those disclosures and the redundancy dismissal. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Detriment claim under s.47B ERA 1996 dismissed. The tribunal rejected allegations that the claimant was ignored, put at risk of redundancy, not properly consulted, or not properly scored because of protected disclosures. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Settled during the proceedings. The judgment records holiday pay and unlawful deduction of wages as settled in the sums of £576 and £422; this figure is taken as the holiday pay settlement amount. | Settled | — | £576 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Settled during the proceedings. The judgment records holiday pay and unlawful deduction of wages as settled in the sums of £576 and £422; this figure is taken as the unlawful deduction settlement amount. | Settled | — | £422 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £998
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
5 references- s.98 ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- s.47B ERA 1996
- s.100 ERA 1996
- s.103 ERA 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.