Ms L A Murning v Only Scranz Ltd — 2025

Ms L A Murning worked for Only Scranz Ltd in its burger van from 17 February 2023. She was absent on fit notes from 12 February 2025, including a note running to 15 April 2025. On 26 March 2025 Mr Mitchell wrote that the respondent “needed to terminate her employment due to ill health” when the current sick note expired, but the tribunal found that the letter conveyed termination and that, on the contemporaneous correspondence, the principal reason for dismissal was conduct: Mr Mitchell believed the claimant was fit to return to work and was refusing to do so or attend a meeting.

The tribunal held that the dismissal was unfair under section 98 ERA 1996 and section 98(4) because the respondent had not carried out as much investigation as was reasonable before relying on that belief. The reports said to have been received by Mr Mitchell were not identified, the claimant was not told what had been reported or given a chance to answer it, and Mr Mitchell did not wait to see whether she returned at the end of March or hold a meeting before issuing notice of termination. The tribunal accepted that the respondent was a small family business and that the absence was difficult to manage, but it still considered that a reasonable employer would have taken those steps before dismissing.

On remedy, the claimant had two years’ service and a gross weekly pay of £216, so the basic award was £432. The compensatory award was £2,562, calculated as 14 weeks’ loss of earnings at £183 net per week from 15 April 2025 to 22 July 2025. The tribunal found that she had no ongoing loss, declined any ACAS uplift, and made no reduction for contributory fault. The total monetary award was £2,994, and the recoupment regulations applied with a prescribed period from 15 April 2025 to 22 July 2025.