Case 4100479/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms G Gibson v Selclene — 2020
- Case reference
- 4100479/2020
- Decision date
- 12 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Robison
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms G Gibson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs G Gibson was employed as an office manager from 8 June 2000 until redundancy on 27 September 2019. She worked 22.5 hours per week at £8.75 per hour, was paid monthly gross pay of £858, and also received a variable bonus based on converted telephone enquiries. The respondent told her on 24 June 2019 that the business was closing and gave 13 weeks' notice. He initially calculated redundancy pay at £5,445, then corrected his calculation after including bonus, and paid £5,591.85 as statutory redundancy pay.
The tribunal recorded that the only issue was whether there was any shortfall in redundancy pay. Applying sections 135, 162 and 145 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, it found that the bonus had to be included when calculating gross weekly pay. Using the final three months' figures, the tribunal calculated an average monthly gross figure of £880.33 and a weekly gross figure of £203.15. On the accepted length of service and age bands, the redundancy formula produced an entitlement of £5,586.63.
Because Mr Robertson had already paid £5,591.85, the tribunal found that Ms Gibson had been paid slightly more than the statutory amount due. It therefore held that no further sum was payable and dismissed the redundancy pay claim. The tribunal also dismissed the claim against the second respondent after Mr Robertson confirmed that Selclene was a franchise firm, that he had traded on his own account, and that he was the claimant's former employer.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The tribunal held that the claimant had already been paid statutory redundancy pay, and that the amount paid (£5,591.85) was slightly higher than the calculated entitlement (£5,586.63). The claim against the second respondent was also dismissed because Mr Robertson was the claimant's employer and the claim was properly directed against the first respondent. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.135 ERA 1996
- s.162 ERA 1996
- s.145 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.