E.T. Z (WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: S/4107461/2017 Held at Inverness on November 2018 Employment Judge: W A Meiklejohn Mrs Hayley Young v Alliance Hotels Consultants Limited — 2018

The claimant worked for the respondent hotel business from 6 August 2013, later moving to home-based database data input work from Inverness from 15 June 2015. The tribunal found that the respondent gave notice of termination on 19 July 2017, confirmed by email on 20 July 2017 and explained further on 28 July 2017, with the employment ending on 30 September 2017. The parties agreed the material facts, including that no prior consultation took place before notice was given.

The tribunal accepted that the reason for dismissal was redundancy. It found that the respondent's need for the claimant's home-based database data input work was to cease as from 30 September 2017, which was a potentially fair reason for dismissal under section 98 ERA 1996 and fell within the redundancy definition in section 139 ERA 1996. However, because the respondent did not consult the claimant before dismissal, the dismissal was procedurally unfair.

Applying Polkey v A E Dayton Services Ltd, the tribunal concluded that proper consultation would not have avoided dismissal and assessed the chance of the claimant still being dismissed as 100%. For that reason it made no compensatory award for unfair dismissal. It also made no basic award because the claimant was entitled to a redundancy payment.

The tribunal awarded a redundancy payment of £520, calculated on four years' service at a weekly gross pay of £130 with a multiplier of 1. It also awarded holiday pay of £284.55 for 35 hours of accrued but untaken holiday at an hourly rate of £8.13. Separately, because the respondent had not provided a written statement of initial employment particulars or notice of changes, the tribunal made an award under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 in the sum of £520, being four weeks' pay.