Claimant v Motherwell Bridge Limited — 2021

Martin Clark's employment began on 2 May 2019. He was dismissed on 27 March 2020, reinstated around 1 April 2020 and then placed on furlough. The parties agreed that he had a contractual entitlement to one month's notice. The respondent wrote on 30 June 2020 stating that it would no longer claim for him under the scheme past 31 July 2020 and that consultation and notice had been applied. The claimant received and read the letter that day and understood it as notice that his employment would end on 31 July 2020.

The tribunal held that the notice was clear and unequivocal and that the contractual one-month notice period had been served. It found that the claimant was paid in full for July 2020 and that the respondent paid the employer pension contributions due on those wages, while the claimant's employee pension contributions were dealt with through salary sacrifice. It rejected the claimant's argument that the furlough scheme rules meant the respondent could not rely on furlough grant monies during the notice period so as to give rise to an additional month's notice or payment in lieu.

The tribunal further held that, even if furlough grant monies ought not to have been applied to pay during the notice period, that would not revoke the notice already served or create an entitlement to another month's notice. It also said it had no jurisdiction to determine whether the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme had been used appropriately in relation to the claimant's wages. The claim for breach of contract in respect of unpaid wages, unpaid pension contributions and accrued holidays during the notice period was therefore dismissed.