Cases→2414360/2021

Claimant v Pyramid Display Materials Ltd

19 January 2024Before Employment Judge Phil AllenManchesterremote video

Outcome

Claimant succeeds£19,933

Individual claims

Unfair Dismissalsucceeded

The tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed as determined in a liability judgment sent on 23 January 2024. This remedy hearing determined the appropriate compensation.

Facts

The claimant was employed from July 2008 to November 2021 with 13 years' service. He was unfairly dismissed following a breakdown in relations, with the respondent failing to provide a right of appeal. He found new employment with Europoint 18 days later at lower pay but went on sick leave from early 2023 and his employment ended by mutual agreement in April 2023. The claimant had a history of ill-health including depression and OCD dating to 2014. At the remedy hearing he was unfit to work and receiving PIP.

Decision

The tribunal awarded a basic award of £7,344 (13.5 years at statutory maximum of £544 per week) with no reductions. The compensatory award was £12,589.13, reflecting lost earnings, pay increases, pension contributions and one month's sick pay to January 2023 (when tribunal found employment would have ended due to ill-health anyway). The compensatory award was increased by 20% for the respondent's unreasonable failure to follow the ACAS Code by not providing an appeal. No Polkey or contributory fault reductions were applied.

Practical note

When calculating loss following unfair dismissal, tribunals will limit the period of compensation where there is clear evidence the employment would have ended anyway due to ill-health, but this does not necessarily require a Polkey percentage reduction if the loss period itself already reflects that likelihood.

Award breakdown

Basic award£7,344
Compensatory award£12,589
Pension loss£541
Loss of statutory rights£500

Adjustments

ACAS uplift+20%

Respondent failed to provide the claimant with a right of appeal, which was found to be a fundamental failure to apply the ACAS Code. The tribunal found this unreasonable and applied a 20% uplift to the compensatory award.

Legal authorities cited

Polkey v A E Dayton Services Ltd [1988] ICR 142Software 2000 Ltd v Andrews [2007] IRLR 568Norton Tool v Tewson [1972] ICR 501Mabey Plant Hire Ltd v RichensDevine v Designer Flowers Wholesale Florist Sundries Ltd 1993 IRLR 517GAB Robins (UK) Ltd v Triggs [2008] EWCA Civ 17Courtaulds Northern Spinning Ltd v Moosa 1984 ICR 218Gardiner-Hill v Roland Berger Tecnics Ltd 1982 IRLR 498Lambe v 186K Ltd 2005 ICR 307Wilkinson v Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency [2022] EAT 23Robert Whiting Designs Ltd v Lamb [1978] ICR 89Carmelli Bakeries Ltd v Benali [2013] UKEAT 0616/12Whitehead v Robertson Partnership [2002] UKEAT/0331/01Jagex Ltd v McCambridge UKEAT/0041/19

Statutes

ERA 1996 s.122TULRCA 1992 s.207AEmployment Act 2002 s.38ERA 1996 s.1ERA 1996 s.123ERA 1996 s.119

Case details

Case number
2414360/2021
Decision date
19 January 2024
Hearing type
remedy
Hearing days
1
Classification
contested

Respondent

Name
Pyramid Display Materials Ltd
Sector
manufacturing
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Employment details

Service
13 years

Claimant representation

Represented
No
Search for this judgment on GOV.UK →