Claimant v Andrea Greystoke (deceased)

The tribunal found the principal reason for dismissal was capability (performance). The respondent did not genuinely believe the claimant was incapable, did not adequately consult the claimant, carried out no investigation, and dismissal was not within the range of reasonable responses given the lack of any performance management process.

The claim was based on failure to give 10 weeks' statutory minimum notice under s86 ERA 1996. This claim cannot proceed under Part IX of the Act following the respondent's death, and could not be pursued under breach of contract alone where no alternative contractual notice period was pleaded.

The claim for unlawful deductions from wages for 13-16 November 2023 was admitted in the ET3. The respondent accepted the effective date of termination as 16 November 2023, so the claimant was entitled to be paid for those days and was not.

The tribunal did not find that the principal reason for ending employment was redundancy. The evidence pointed to capability (performance) being the principal reason for dismissal.

Claim concerning written particulars of employment was withdrawn by the claimant at the hearing.

Failure to provide itemised pay statements under s8 ERA 1996 was admitted in the ET3, although the response stated that these were given on request. The tribunal found the claim well-founded.

Failure to provide written reasons for dismissal under s92-93 ERA 1996. While the respondent claimed written reasons were given in a WhatsApp message, the tribunal found these inadequate, amounting only to 'you have not been doing a very good job' and 'there is no longer a job for you here', which did not suffice under s93 ERA 1996.

Breach of contract claim in respect of pension auto-enrolment was withdrawn by the claimant at the hearing.