Case 4100142/2017 · Employment Tribunal
J Hendry (sitting alone) Mrs Shirley Wilson v Represented by: Mr F Lefevre Solicitor Lows Traditional Ltd — 2017
- Case reference
- 4100142/2017
- Decision date
- 11 August 2017
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mr
- Venue
- Aberdeen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
J Hendry (sitting alone) Mrs Shirley Wilson
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs Shirley Wilson worked as a Catering Supervisor for Lows Traditional Ltd from 15 March 2007. The tribunal accepted that the respondent had a genuine redundancy situation because lunchtime trade had fallen, but it held that the dismissal process was unfair. At the 11 November 2016 meeting the respondent said one employee from the four morning/lunchtime staff would be made redundant, but the selection criteria were only described in general terms, no scoring system was explained, and the claimant was not given her scores or any right of appeal.
The tribunal found there had not been meaningful consultation about avoiding redundancy, redeployment, reduced hours, or voluntary redundancy, and it accepted the claimant's evidence that she did not have a proper consultation meeting on 14 November 2016. It also held that the alternative catering supervisor role starting at 4.30pm was not a reasonable suitable alternative employment in the circumstances, having regard to the claimant's long-standing morning hours, her childcare commitments for her daughter, and the change in the nature of the work. The tribunal considered it reasonable that she declined that offer.
The unfair dismissal claim succeeded. The tribunal awarded a basic award of £2,024.73 and a compensatory award reduced by 30% for Polkey risk to £3,605.22. It recorded a prescribed element of £2,525.90, with £3,104.05 immediately due, and also ordered reimbursement of £1,200 tribunal fees. The separate breach of contract claim for notice pay also succeeded, because the letter of 17 November 2016 did not clearly require the claimant to work her nine-week notice period and the later letter of 21 November 2016 came too late to alter that position.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal accepted redundancy as the reason for dismissal under section 139 ERA 1996, but held the dismissal was unfair because consultation was limited, the selection criteria were vague and unexplained, no scoring or appeal was provided, and the proposed 4.30pm alternative post was not a reasonable suitable alternative in the circumstances. The order states a monetary award of £5,629.94; the reasons explain this as a basic award of £2,024.73 and a compensatory award of £3,605.22 after a 30% Polkey reduction. | Upheld | — | £5,630 |
| Breach of contract | Notice pay was awarded because the 17 November 2016 letter said the claimant's job had become redundant from 21 November 2016 but did not make clear that she had to work her nine-week notice period. The tribunal held the later letter of 21 November 2016 was too late to change that position. | Upheld | — | £1,350 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £8,180
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £2,025
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £3,605
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
7 references- section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 139 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- Sainsburys Supermarket v PJ Hitt (2002) EWCA Civ 1588
- Iceland Frozen Foods Ltd v Jones [1983] ICR
- British Aerospace
- Williams v Compare Maxam
- Polkey principle
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.