Claimant v Well Known Brands Limited

The tribunal found the dismissal unfair because the respondent failed to satisfy the burden of proof under section 98(1) of the ERA. In the absence of evidence from the respondent tested on affirmation, the tribunal could not determine whether the principal reason for dismissal was conduct or redundancy, or which was the greater reason.

The claimant was entitled to travel expenses under an oral agreement which the tribunal found credible and consistent. The respondent had agreed to pay £14.90/week for 7 weeks and £15.70/week for 21 weeks, totalling £434.00.

The claimant was entitled to 2 weeks' notice under his contract but was only paid 1 week's pay in lieu. He was therefore dismissed without lawful notice, though no additional damages were awarded as the loss was subsumed into the compensatory award.

The claimant claimed holiday pay but was unable to explain in cross-examination how he had constructed his calculation table or provide underlying evidence. The respondent's documentary evidence showed no holiday pay was owed, and the tribunal was not satisfied the claimant was owed the amount claimed.

The respondent admitted failing to provide written itemised pay statements from September 2022 to March 2023 as required by section 8 ERA 1996.

The claimant claimed he was not provided with a written statement of employment particulars, but accepted in evidence he received it in March 2024. Under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002, the award can only be made if there was no statement when proceedings began on 13 November 2024.

The claimant claimed breach of contract for late pension contributions. While the respondent accepted the contributions (for 04/05/2024 to 09/08/2024) were paid late, they had been paid by 25 October 2024. The claimant did not specify or prove any loss or damage resulting from the delay.