Mr B Green v Llucias Kitchens — 2023

The claimant, Mr B Green, injured his ankle on 12 February 2023 and was signed off work. The tribunal found that the respondent's reasons for dismissal changed over time, that the claimant's evidence was generally preferred because he was not cross-examined, and that the respondent relied on matters that were not the actual reasons for dismissal, including events after the claimant had already been told he was dismissed.

On unfair dismissal, the tribunal held that Llucias Kitchens did not discharge the burden under s.98 ERA 1996 of showing a potentially fair reason for dismissal. It found no fair reason for dismissal and, alternatively, that the dismissal was procedurally unfair because no disciplinary hearing or other fair process was held, no meaningful opportunity to respond was given, and no warnings had been shown to the claimant. The tribunal referred to the ACAS Code, the Polkey principle, and the band of reasonable responses approach, and it made no contributory fault or Polkey deduction. It also noted that the claimant's point that the proposed light-duty pay would fall below the National Minimum Wage did not provide a fair reason for dismissal.

The tribunal assessed compensation by reference to the claimant's age, three complete years' service, and average pay. It awarded a basic award of £604.07 and a compensatory award of £7,697.16, comprising past loss, future loss, loss of statutory rights and a 25% uplift for failure to follow the ACAS Code. The unfair dismissal award totalled £8,301.23. No separate notice pay award was made because that loss was already covered within the unfair dismissal compensation.

The tribunal also upheld the breach of contract claim because the claimant was dismissed without notice, but it made no separate award on that head. It upheld the unlawful deduction from wages claim for £108 deducted from final pay, and the holiday pay claim for £275.40. On the holiday pay issue, it found that the claimant was entitled to payment in lieu of 3.6 days' untaken holiday, while the respondent's notices for some alleged holiday days were not valid under the Working Time Regulations.