Cases2402953/2021

Claimant v Jones Lighting Limited

19 February 2024Before Employment Judge G TobinManchesterin person

Outcome

Claimant succeeds£56,221

Individual claims

Unfair Dismissalsucceeded

The respondent conceded unfair dismissal at the outset of the hearing. The tribunal accepted that the respondent dismissed the claimants on 31 December 2020 in the belief that a TUPE transfer was occurring to Altitude, but after a previous preliminary hearing it had been determined that no TUPE transfer took place. The respondent accepted the dismissals were procedurally unfair. The tribunal assessed remedy accordingly, including Polkey reductions for some claimants.

Wrongful Dismissalsucceeded

The first four claimants (Duffy, Priestner, Ashton, Astle) succeeded in wrongful dismissal claims. They were dismissed without notice or payment in lieu of notice. The tribunal awarded them notice pay equivalent to their statutory notice periods under s.86 ERA, calculated on a net basis following Norton Tool principles. Their entitlement to notice pay was assessed separately but not awarded twice where it overlapped with the compensatory award.

Facts

Six claimants worked for Jones Lighting Limited, a street lighting maintenance contractor. The respondent lost the AGMA contract following retendering. Believing a TUPE transfer applied, the respondent told the claimants they would transfer to the new contractor, Altitude, on 1 January 2021. When the claimants attended Altitude on 4 January 2021 they were turned away. A previous tribunal determined no TUPE transfer occurred. The claimants' employment with Jones ended on 31 December 2020. All claimants settled separate claims against Altitude via COT3 agreements for varying sums.

Decision

The tribunal found all claimants were unfairly dismissed (conceded by respondent) and awarded basic awards and compensatory awards. The first four claimants also succeeded in wrongful dismissal claims. A 30% Polkey reduction was applied to three claimants identified as most likely to face redundancy. Settlement sums from Altitude were deducted from compensatory awards under Optimum Group Services principles, but not from basic awards. Total awards ranged from £328 (Astle) to £14,980.29 (Ashton), with some compensatory awards entirely extinguished by Altitude settlements.

Practical note

Settlement payments from third parties must be deducted from compensatory awards to avoid double recovery, but cannot be set off against basic awards unless expressly agreed to cover that liability, regardless of the respondent's wish to avoid 'overpayment'.

Award breakdown

Basic award£51,158
Compensatory award£4,063
Pension loss£7,105
Loss of statutory rights£2,400

Adjustments

Polkey reduction30%

30% chance that Mr Duffy, Mr Ashton and Mr Astle would have been fairly dismissed for redundancy in any event after 1 month, following loss of AGMA contract which represented 30% of respondent's turnover

Legal authorities cited

Polkey v A E Dayton Services Ltd [1988] ICR 142Optimum Group Services v Muir [2013] IRLR 339Norton Tool Co Ltd v Tewson [1972] ICR 501Chelsea Football Club and Athletic Club Limited v Heath [1981] ICR 323Pomphrey of Sittingbourne Limited v Reed EAT 457/1994Boorman v Allmakes Limited [1995] ICR 842Voith Turbo Ltd v Stowe [2005] ICR 543

Statutes

Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) RegulationsEmployment Rights Act 1996 s.98Employment Rights Act 1996 s.118Employment Rights Act 1996 s.119Employment Rights Act 1996 s.122Employment Rights Act 1996 s.94Employment Rights Act 1996 s.123

Case details

Case number
2402953/2021
Decision date
19 February 2024
Hearing type
remedy
Hearing days
5
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
construction
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Employment details

Role
Various roles: LV Jointer, cable jointer, electrician, apprentice electrician, Street Lighting Manager/Health & Safety Manager

Claimant representation

Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister