Mr B-G Torriero v Represented by: Mr A Hutcheson, Hutchesons Solicitor Harleys Franchise Ltd — 2025

The claimant, a motorcycle instructor employed from 1 May 2022, was dismissed by WhatsApp message on 4 April 2025 while he was in Australia. The tribunal accepted the respondent's evidence that its franchise income had ended and that by March 2025 it no longer had funds to pay the claimant, so the reason for dismissal was redundancy within section 139 ERA 1996. The tribunal also found that the effective dismissal date was 4 April 2025 and that there had been no earlier act clearly ending the contract.

Although the reason for dismissal was redundancy, the tribunal held that the dismissal was unfair under section 98(4) ERA 1996 because the respondent did not inform or consult the claimant at an early stage, did not provide a meaningful opportunity to discuss alternatives, and did not offer an appeal. The tribunal accepted that the business position meant dismissal was likely in any event, but found that some warning and consultation should have taken place. Applying Polkey, it limited compensatory loss to three weeks' net pay, covering 1 to 22 April 2025, because the claimant would probably have been dismissed shortly after his return from holiday.

The tribunal upheld the breach of contract claim for notice because the claimant was entitled to two weeks' notice under his written terms and section 86 ERA 1996, but received none, so damages of £1,153.85 were awarded. It also upheld two separate pension-related breach of contract complaints: employee deductions shown on the payslips were not paid into any occupational pension scheme, and the employer contributions shown on the payslips were likewise not paid into any scheme. The tribunal treated those as breaches of the implied contractual term reflected in the auto-enrolment duties and awarded £5,646.04 for the employee contributions and £3,387.63 for the employer contributions.

The tribunal further upheld the statutory complaints about the failure to provide a compliant statement of employment particulars and the failure to provide itemised payslips. The statement was not supplied until February 2025, almost three years after employment began, and it still did not contain all required particulars, so the tribunal increased the award to three weeks' gross pay, or £2,100. It found that several payslips had not been provided and made a declaration to that effect, but no monetary award was made because there were no unnotified deductions in the 13-week period before the claim was presented. The total ordered payment was £16,118.29, made up of the unfair dismissal basic award of £2,100, the unfair dismissal compensatory award of £1,730.77, notice damages of £1,153.85, the statement award of £2,100, and the two pension contribution awards.