Mr James MacAulay v No Appearance Redundancy Payment Service — 2017

The tribunal had already held in its earlier judgment of 24 January 2017 that it did not have jurisdiction to consider certain other complaints brought by the claimant, but that it did have jurisdiction over the redundancy payment complaint. It then invited written submissions on whether a Rule 21 judgment should be issued against the second respondent and whether the proceedings should be sisted or stayed against the first respondent.

No response was received from the second respondent. The first respondent said it had no objection to a Rule 21 judgment being issued against the second respondent, and the claimant’s solicitor also supported that course. The tribunal concluded that a Rule 21 judgment should be issued in terms of Schedule 1 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013.

The tribunal found that the claimant had been dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a statutory redundancy payment. It calculated that payment at £6,675, using the claimant’s age at dismissal of 49 years, 11 full years’ service, and gross weekly pay of £445. The second respondent was ordered to pay that sum, and the claim continued to be sisted/stayed against the first respondent.