Mr Keith M Halfpenny v Sood Enterprises Ltd — 2022

Mr Keith M Halfpenny was employed by Sood Enterprises Ltd from 25 March 2018 as an Assistant Manager. The tribunal found that he signed a statement of main terms of employment in June 2018, which set out the notice provisions, and that he went off sick in July 2020 and remained incapable of work until dismissal. The claimant said he had never seen the Staff Handbook before termination, and the tribunal accepted his evidence on that point.

The sole issue was whether the respondent could rely on section 87(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 to avoid paying notice pay at the claimant's normal rate during sickness absence. The respondent said the Staff Handbook had been changed in January 2019 and that the revised notice provision meant no payment was due during the notice period. The tribunal found the claimant had not agreed to any variation and was unaware of any change to his terms until after dismissal. It noted doubts about whether the handbook had been properly changed, but did not make a formal finding on that point because it was unnecessary to decide the claim.

The tribunal held that the relevant contract provided for statutory notice rather than notice at least one week longer than the statutory minimum, so section 87(4) did not apply. It also held that section 90 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 entitled the claimant to notice pay even though he was unfit for work because of sickness. On the claimant's schedule of loss and his three years' service, the tribunal calculated three weeks' notice pay at £326.40 per week, producing an award of £979.20.