Mr A Rodgers v Represented by: Himself Eyekon Services Ltd — 2023

Mr A Rodgers brought claims for unfair dismissal and a redundancy payment. The tribunal heard only from the claimant because the respondent did not lodge a response and did not attend. The claimant said he was told on 9 September 2022 that the respondent had lost the building contract and that he was dismissed with immediate effect. He had started employment in June 2002 with a predecessor, his employment transferred by TUPE, he worked 37.5 hours per week, and he earned £1,363 net per month (£1,573 gross). He later obtained comparable employment after 10 weeks.

The tribunal set out the statutory approach to redundancy and the fairness guidance in redundancy dismissals. It found there had been no consultation or discussion with the claimant, no attempt to engage with him or consider alternatives to dismissal, and no evidence that a fair procedure would have led to dismissal in any event. On that basis it held that the claimant had been unfairly dismissed.

For remedy, the tribunal awarded a basic award of £5,490, calculated by reference to 15 weeks' pay, and a compensatory award of £3,490. The compensatory award comprised £3,140 for 10 weeks without income and £350 for loss of statutory rights. It recorded that the recoupment regulations did not apply because the claimant had not received statutory benefits. The claim for a redundancy payment was dismissed.