Case 4100036/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Cebula v Represented by: A Sierant Consultant Nickam Limited and 1 other — 2021
- Case reference
- 4100036/2021
- Decision date
- 9 August 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Russell Bradley
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr P Cebula
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr P Cebula worked for Nickam Ltd as head chef at Miros from 20 June 2017 to 31 October 2020. After Nickam Ltd acquired the restaurant on or about 28 August 2020 by TUPE, Mr Maham told staff their jobs were at risk unless they worked together and discussed reducing hours. Following the Scottish Government announcement on 7 October 2020, the respondent reduced opening days and then decided to make half of its staff redundant, giving the claimant notice by email on 10 October 2020.
The tribunal accepted that redundancy was the reason for dismissal and rejected the suggestion that it was a sham. It nevertheless found the dismissal unfair under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 because there had been no consultation or warning before the dismissal email, no discussion of the selection criteria with staff, no fair application of the criteria actually used, no real consideration of alternative employment, and no appeal offered. The tribunal referred to the redundancy dismissal principles in Williams and ors v Compair Maxam Ltd and Polkey v A. E. Dayton Services Ltd. The unfair dismissal award was £1,191.55, made up of a £371.20 basic award and a £820.35 compensatory award.
The notice-pay claim succeeded as an unlawful deduction from wages: the claimant was entitled to three weeks' notice but was paid statutory sick pay rather than full pay during that period, so £619.11 was awarded. The holiday-pay claim also succeeded, with the tribunal calculating pro rata leave under the Working Time Regulations; the reasons section calculates £699.17 due, while the formal order records £619.11. A further £680 was awarded under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 because the respondent had prepared but not issued written particulars of employment.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal accepted that redundancy was the reason for dismissal under section 139(1) ERA 1996, but found the dismissal unfair because there was no consultation or warning, no fair application of the selection criteria actually relied on, no real consideration of alternative employment, and no appeal offered. The operative order awards £1,191.55 made up of a £371.20 basic award and a £820.35 compensatory award; paragraph 53's remedy discussion does not fully match that compensatory figure. | Upheld | — | £1,192 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | This was the notice-period pay claim, which the tribunal treated as an unlawful deduction from wages under section 13 ERA 1996. The tribunal held the claimant was entitled to three weeks' notice and should have been paid full pay for that period rather than statutory sick pay. | Upheld | — | £619 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal held the claimant was entitled to accrued and untaken holiday pay under the Working Time Regulations. Paragraph 55 calculates a balance of £699.17 due after deducting £200 and £89.51 from £988.68, but the formal order at paragraph 3 records £619.11. | Upheld | — | £619 |
| Other | Section 38 Employment Act 2002 award for failure to provide written particulars of employment. The tribunal accepted that the respondent had prepared a written statement of main terms but had not issued it to the claimant. | Upheld | — | £680 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,110
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £371
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £820
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
11 references- s.98(1) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- s.139(1) ERA 1996
- Williams and ors v Compair Maxam Ltd
- Polkey v A. E. Dayton Services Ltd
- s.13 ERA 1996
- s.88 ERA 1996
- s.89 ERA 1996
- Regulation 14 WTR 1998
- Regulation 16 WTR 1998
- section 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.