Claimant v The Home Improvement Studio (Trade) Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the redundancy was not genuine. The stated reason that the assistant accountant (MU) had resigned with immediate effect was false—she returned seamlessly to a full-time role just days after her supposed departure. The tribunal found no credible evidence of downturn in business, no meaningful outsourcing of the accountancy function, and concluded the dismissal was not for redundancy within s.139(1)(b) ERA. The consultation was predicated on falsehoods and there was no genuine search for alternative employment when work was clearly available.
The claimant was awarded a £5,000 bonus in June 2023, which became properly payable wages once declared and quantified, per Farrell Matthews & Weir v Hansen and Tradition Securities v Mouradian. The respondent's attempt to retract the bonus in October 2023 was an unlawful deduction under s.13 ERA, as there was no contractual provision, statutory authority, or written agreement permitting withholding of the bonus after it had been declared.
The respondent failed to provide the claimant with any written statement of employment particulars as required by s.1 ERA. The tribunal awarded 4 weeks' pay under s.38 Employment Act 2002, rejecting the respondent's argument that issuing contracts was part of the claimant's role.
Facts
The claimant was a part-time qualified accountant employed by a home improvement company from July 2020 to November 2023. In June 2023 she was awarded a £5,000 bonus which she deferred. In October 2023 the respondent told her the assistant accountant (MU) had resigned with immediate effect and her role was at risk of redundancy due to downturn and outsourcing. After two brief consultation meetings, she was dismissed on 7 November 2023. However, MU had not resigned with immediate effect—she returned to a full-time role on 1 November 2023 at nearly double her previous salary. The respondent also retracted the claimant's bonus, alleging she had failed to detect fraud by another employee.
Decision
The tribunal found the redundancy was a sham. The stated reasons—MU leaving, downturn in business, and outsourcing—were false. MU seamlessly transitioned to a full-time role just days later, no credible evidence of downturn or meaningful outsourcing was provided, and the consultation was predicated on falsehoods. The dismissal was unfair. The bonus retraction was an unlawful deduction of wages as the bonus had been declared and quantified. The respondent also failed to provide written employment particulars. All claims succeeded with a total award of £13,707.60, limited by the claimant's failure to adequately mitigate loss.
Practical note
A redundancy dismissal will be unfair where the employer conducts consultation on fundamentally false premises and where the purported reasons for redundancy (assistant's departure, outsourcing) are contradicted by the employer's own subsequent actions (rehiring the assistant, continuing in-house accountancy work).
Award breakdown
Award equivalent: 39.6 weeks' gross pay
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3303686/2024
- Decision date
- 10 December 2024
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- construction
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep
Employment details
- Role
- Accountant and Company Secretary
- Salary band
- £15,000–£20,000
- Service
- 3 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister