A Ireland v Wing Lee Creative Ltd: 3306524/2020
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 06 June 2022 |
| Date | 06 June 2022 |
| Published date | 15 June 2022 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Citation | 3306524/2020 |
| Subject Matter | Breach of Contract |
Case No: 3306524/2020
10.7 Judgment with reasons – rule 62
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: Aaron Ireland
Respondent: Wing Lee Creative Ltd
Heard at: Watford On: 5th and 6th May 2022
Before: Employment Judge Dick
Representation:
Claimant: Mr Tim Sheppard (counsel)
Respondent: Mr Nigel Boulton (an employee of the Respondent)
RESERVED JUDGMENT
1. The Claimant was unfairly dismissed by the Respondent.
2. The Respondent was in breach of contract by dismissing the Claimant without
notice.
3. The Respondent was in breach of contract by failing to pay the Claimant three
months’ accrued holiday pay upon dismissal.
4. The appropriate remedies for the above will be determined at a hearing at 10
a.m. at Watford Employment Tribunal on 7th June 2022, reserved to
Employment Judge Dick.
5. The part of the compensatory award for unfair dismissal accounting for the
period after 15th April 2020 will be the subject of a 60 % deduction under the
principles in Polkey v A E Dayton Services Limited 1988 ICR 142.
REASONS
Key to references: [x] = document from agreed bundle, {x} = paragraph number
in witness statement (of the witness I am referring to unless otherwise recorded).
All dates are 2020 unless otherwise stated.
Case No: 3306524/2020
10.7 Judgment with reasons – rule 62
INTRODUCTION
1. The Claimant was employed as a graphic designer by the Respondent, a
marketing agency. On 31st March 2020 the Claimant was informed by an
emailed letter that he was being dismissed, effective the following day. The
reason given for the dismissal was redundancy. The Claimant claims the
decision to dismiss, taken without consultation or notice, was unfair. He also
claims for notice pay (wrongful dismissal) and holiday pay said to have been
accrued in 2020. I am also asked to consider claims that the Respondent failed
to give the Claimant adequate particulars of employment and that the
redundancy payment made to the Claimant was £ 92 short.
2. This dismissal took place in the context of the worldwide COVID-19 pandemic,
which had substantially affected the Respondent's business. A week before the
Claimant’s dismissal, on 23rd March, the country had entered what is now
known as the first lockdown. It was not in dispute that the Claimant had not
attended work after the 23rd, though whether he was justified in so doing was
in dispute.
CLAIMS AND ISSUES
3. Following discussions with the parties before the evidence began, I identified
the following substantive issues:
a. Unfair dismissal:
i. Was the reason for dismissal redundancy? (I had initially
alerted the parties that I might also consider whether it was for
some other substantial reason, though in the event, the way
the evidence came out meant that I did not need to consider
this.)
ii. Was the dismissal fair or unfair? (Both in terms of the process
and substantively.)
iii. If unfair, should there be a reduction to damages for future
loss to reflect fact that employment would have ended fairly in
any event (following Polkey v A E Dayton Services Limited
1988 ICR 142).
b. Notice pay
i. Was the Claimant entitled to payment in lieu of notice? The
Respondent’s case was that he was not, since he had refused
to come into work after 24th March.
c. Holiday pay:
i. The Claimant did not take any holidays between 1st January
2020 and the date of his dismissal. Was he, as the Claimant
said, entitled to full payment for the days accrued during that
period or was the Respondent, as the Respondent claimed,
entitled not to pay him that amount on account of what the
Respondent said were unauthorised absences between 24th
March and 1st April (6 working days).
To continue reading
Request your trial