In person For the v Respondent — 2020

The tribunal was dealing with remedy only. At an earlier hearing in October 2014, the claimant's statutory claims for unfair dismissal, whistleblowing, race discrimination, religious discrimination, victimisation and failure to provide written terms and conditions had been struck out for want of territorial jurisdiction. By the 2020 hearing, the remaining issues were wrongful dismissal, holiday pay, flight costs and relocation/baggage costs, together with an application for an uplift for failure to follow the ACAS grievance code and the respondents' historic costs application.

On wrongful dismissal, the tribunal held that the claimant was entitled to damages for the three-month notice period including contractual benefits, not just basic salary. It accepted that the claimant's accommodation, car, fuel and utilities were part of the financial package lost during the notice period, and accepted the claimant's calculations, awarding £32,163.09. Holiday pay was agreed at £10,773.24.

On the travel and relocation claims, the tribunal accepted the claimant's evidence that the family flights met the contractual requirement of the cheapest commercially available airfare and awarded £2,164.52. For baggage and relocation, the tribunal relied on clause 35 of the Staff Handbook, found that the contractual limit was 3 cubic metres, and rejected the late evidence said to support a wider oral agreement; it accepted the respondents' figure of £983.87.

The tribunal found that the claimant had lodged a grievance in February 2013 which was acknowledged but not progressed, and that this was an unreasonable failure to follow the ACAS Code and the respondents' own procedure. It applied a 15% uplift under s.207A TULRCA 1992, taking the calculated total to £52,997.42. However, the Employment Tribunals (Extension of Jurisdiction) Order 1994 capped the sum that could be ordered at £25,000, so that was the amount awarded. The respondents' costs application was refused because the tribunal did not find that the claimant had acted unreasonably in the conduct of the proceedings.