Claimant v Blue Tiger Coffee Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed (not mutual termination) for some other substantial reason (business restructure). The dismissal was procedurally unfair: the claimant was not adequately warned her employment was at risk, there was inadequate consultation, and the respondent failed to offer her the opportunity to apply for the full-time catering manager role or the combined accounts/administrative role.
Facts
Claimant worked for respondent from May 2018 in various roles, becoming catering manager in February 2023 (24 hrs/week, £38,000 pro-rata). Respondent decided to make catering manager full-time with additional responsibilities due to business expansion. On 6 September 2024, claimant was told her role was changing and offered part-time accounts role (16 hrs/week). On 23 September 2024, respondent told claimant it was 'letting her go', offered £6,000 settlement. Claimant negotiated to £7,000 plus September pay, believing she was being made redundant. Employment ended 30 September 2024.
Decision
Tribunal found claimant was dismissed, not a mutual termination, as she was told she was being 'let go' before settlement negotiations and acted under coercion. Dismissal was for some other substantial reason (business restructure), a potentially fair reason. However, dismissal was procedurally unfair: inadequate warning employment was at risk, inadequate consultation, failure to offer claimant opportunity to apply for full-time catering role or combined accounts/admin role. 60% Polkey reduction applied for likelihood of fair dismissal after proper procedure.
Practical note
Pre-termination negotiations under s.111A ERA may be admissible where undue pressure is applied; telling an employee they are being dismissed before offering a settlement negates any claim of mutual termination and constitutes coercion under Riley principles.
Adjustments
60% chance the claimant would still have been dismissed even with a fair procedure, taking into account allegations of breach of confidentiality and possible bad-mouthing of management. The tribunal considered this dismissal, if conducted fairly following a proper investigation, would have been within the range of reasonable responses.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6019238/2024
- Decision date
- 28 November 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- hospitality
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Catering Manager
- Salary band
- £30,000–£40,000
- Service
- 6 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No