Claimant v Manchett Group Limited

The tribunal found the dismissal by reason of redundancy was unfair under s98 ERA 1996 due to failings in the redundancy consultation procedure. The respondent failed to consult properly with the claimant. The procedure adopted was outside the range of what a reasonable employer would adopt. The claimant was told he was being made redundant on 4 February 2025 without first being told he was at risk. The consultation letter was not a genuine at risk notification as a first step in a fair consultation process.

The tribunal found the claimant's continuous employment commenced on 1 October 2019, not November 2013 as claimed. Prior to October 2019, the claimant provided services via his personal services company Teeson (Kent) Limited under a contract between Teeson and the respondent, not a direct employment contract. The statutory redundancy payment was therefore correctly calculated based on continuous employment from 1 October 2019.

The claim for notice pay failed because the tribunal found the claimant's continuous employment commenced on 1 October 2019. The notice pay was therefore correctly calculated based on that start date.

Claim under s38 Employment Act 2002 for additional award succeeded. The written statement issued in October 2019 did not comply with s1 ERA 1996 because it failed to state the continuous employment start date. The sentence stating the continuous employment start date was incomplete. The tribunal awarded the minimum two weeks' pay, declining to award the higher four weeks as it was not just and equitable given the claimant was not entirely open about his personal services company Teeson.

The claim under s10 Employment Relations Act 1999 for denial of right to be accompanied was dismissed because the statutory right does not apply in redundancy dismissals unless there is a disciplinary element, which there was not in this case.