Cases3306686/2021

Claimant v Do & Co Event & Airline Catering Limited

28 August 2024Before Employment Judge MaxwellBury St Edmundsremote video

Outcome

Claimant succeeds

Individual claims

Breach of Contractsucceeded

Mr Singh received notice of dismissal on 15 January 2021 stating employment would end on 31 January 2021. Having been entitled to 12 weeks' notice, he received only 2 weeks, a breach of contract entitling him to 10 weeks' pay. Mrs Didi was summarily dismissed on 8 March 2021 without any notice, a breach entitling her to 12 weeks' pay.

Holiday Paysucceeded

Mr Singh was entitled to carry forward 33 days leave from 2020 plus 2.75 days accrued in January 2021, less 10 days leave instructed to be taken, resulting in entitlement to payment for 27.75 days, more than the 9.75 days the Respondent calculated. Mrs Didi did not receive the dismissal letter varying her contract, so she was entitled to payment for 6.06 days accrued in 2021 (1 January to 8 March), but was only paid for 2.75 days.

Unlawful Deduction from Wagesfailed

The tribunal found that failure to give adequate notice gives rise to a claim in damages for pay, not wages for purposes of unlawful deductions. Similarly, compensation for accrued untaken leave on termination is not wages. The unlawful deductions claims could not succeed.

Direct Discrimination(pregnancy)dismissed on withdrawal

Ms Teper withdrew her claim of pregnancy and maternity discrimination with respect to dismissal.

Direct Discrimination(age)dismissed on withdrawal

Mr Dass withdrew his claim of direct age discrimination with respect to dismissal at the beginning of the hearing.

Facts

This was a multiple claimant case arising from redundancy dismissals by an airline catering company. The lead claimants, Mr Singh and Mrs Didi, had long service (20+ years) having TUPE transferred from Gate Gourmet to DHL to the Respondent in October 2020. Dismissal letters dated 29 November 2020 were sent but many were received late or not at all due to postal delays. Mr Singh received his letter on 15 January 2021 giving notice to 31 January 2021. Mrs Didi did not receive a letter and was summarily dismissed on 8 March 2021. Both claimants had 33 days annual leave entitlement and disputed the calculation of notice pay and holiday pay owed on termination.

Decision

The tribunal found both claimants succeeded in their breach of contract and holiday pay claims. Mr Singh was entitled to 10 weeks' additional notice pay (having received only 2 of his 12 weeks' entitlement) and payment for 27.75 days holiday (having carried forward 33 days from 2020 plus accrued days, less 10 days instructed leave actually taken). Mrs Didi was entitled to 12 weeks' notice pay and 6.06 days holiday pay. The tribunal found the Respondent's dismissal letter constituted a contractual variation allowing carry forward of 2020 leave for Mr Singh, but this did not apply to Mrs Didi who never received the letter. Amounts to be determined at remedy hearing.

Practical note

When dismissing employees by post, employers must ensure letters are actually received in time for the stated notice period to be effective, and any contractual variations (such as holiday carry-forward arrangements) only bind employees who actually receive notification of the proposed variation.

Legal authorities cited

King v Sash Window Workshop [2018] ICR 693Solectron Scotland Ltd v Roper [2004] IRLR 613Attrill v Dresdner Kleinwort Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 394Maschek v Magistratsdirektion Der Stadt Wien [2016] IRLR 801Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v Haywood [2018] ICR 882Sandle v Adecco UK Ltd [2016] IRLR 941Stringer v Revenue and Customs [2009] ICR 932

Statutes

Working Time Regulations 1998 reg.15Working Time Regulations 1998 reg.13AWorking Time Regulations 1998 reg.13ERA 1996 s.95

Case details

Case number
3306686/2021
Decision date
28 August 2024
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
8
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
hospitality
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Employment details

Service
21 years

Claimant representation

Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister