Automated Summary
Key Facts
The Employment Tribunal ruled on Mr. Michael Goddard's claims against MB Evans Limited. The claim for a protective payment under s. 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1992 was dismissed after being withdrawn. The tribunal found no unauthorized wage deductions (holiday pay) and no failure to provide written dismissal reasons as per the Employment Rights Act 1996. However, MB Evans Limited was found in breach of contract for dismissing Mr. Goddard without notice. The claim for unfair dismissal was upheld, resulting in a £16,800 basic award and £5,136 notice pay. The total compensation of £21,936 was not subject to recoupment as the prescribed element was £0.
Issues
- The claimant's claim for unfair dismissal under s. 94 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was well-founded.
- The period of loss for the compensatory award was reduced by 100% under the principles of Polkey v A E Dayton Services.
- Complaint regarding unauthorised deduction from wages (holiday pay) under s. 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
- The respondent was in breach of contract for dismissing the claimant without notice.
- Claim for a protective payment under s. 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
- Complaint about not providing true written reasons for dismissal under s. 92 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Holdings
- The claimant's complaint that he was not provided with true written reasons for the dismissal contrary to s. 92 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 is not well-founded.
- The claimant's claim for a protective payment under s. 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 is dismissed on having been withdrawn.
- The claimant's complaint that there was an unauthorised deduction from his wages (holiday pay) is not well-founded. This means the claimant was not subject to unlawful deductions contrary to section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
- The claimant's claim for unfair dismissal is well-founded. This means the respondent unfairly dismissed the claimant contrary to section 94 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
- The period of loss over which the Claimant can claim a compensatory award is reduced by 100% under the principles of Polkey v A E Dayton Services.
- The respondent was in breach of contract for dismissing the claimant without notice.
Remedies
- £16,800 basic award for unfair dismissal under s. 94 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Calculated as 30 qualifying weeks multiplied by gross weekly pay of £560.
- £5,136 notice pay for breach of contract due to dismissal without notice. Calculated as 12 weeks at net weekly pay of £428, net of tax and national insurance.
Monetary Damages
21936.00
Legal Principles
The court applied the Polkey v A E Dayton Services principles, reducing the compensatory award by 100% due to the claimant's contributory negligence.
Precedent Name
Polkey v A E Dayton Services
Cited Statute
- Employment Rights Act 1996
- Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
Judge Name
Employment Judge Grubb
Passage Text
- The respondent was in breach of contract for dismissing the claimant without notice.
- a £16,800 basic award for unfair dismissal. b £5,136 notice pay in respect of his breach of contract claim. This sum is net of tax and national insurance.
- The claimant's claim for unfair dismissal is well-founded. This means the respondent unfairly dismissed the claimant contrary to section 94 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.