Mrs A Mungai v Allied Vehicles Ltd: 4107962/2020
| Judgment Date | 06 September 2021 |
| Citation | 4107962/2020 |
| Date | 06 September 2021 |
| Published date | 01 November 2021 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Part Time Workers |
E.T. Z4 (WR)
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND)
5
Case Number: 4107962/2020
Final Hearing held by Cloud Video Platform (CVP) on 19 and 20 July 2021
10
Employment Judge: R Sorrell
Mrs A Mungai Claimant
In Person
15
Allied Vehicles Ltd Respondent
Represented by
20
Stephen Hughes
Counsel
25
FINAL HEARING
JUDGMENT OF THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL
The Judgment of the Tribunal is that:-
30
(i) The claim for unfair dismissal is well founded and upheld.
(ii) The claim for less favourable treatment as a part-time worker is well
founded and upheld.
35
COMPENSATION
4107962/2020 Page 2
(iii) The respondent is ordered to pay to the claimant the sum of £12,792.11
(Twelve Thousand, Seven Hundred and Ninety Two Pounds and Eleven
Pence).
(iv) The Employment Protection (Recoupment of Jobseekers Allowance and
Income Support) Regulations 1996 apply to this award. The prescribed
5
element of the award is £8,534.81 (Eight Thousand, Five Hundred and Thirty
Four Pounds and Eighty One Pence) and relates to the period from 31
October 2020 to the date of judgment. The monetary award exceeds the
prescribed element by £4,257.30 (Four Thousand, Two Hundred and Fifty
Seven Pounds and Thirty Pence).
10
REASONS
Introduction
1. The claimant lodged claims for unfair dismissal, the non-payment of a loyalty
bonus and less favourable treatment as a part-time worker on 21 December
15
2020 in respect of the redundancy process leading to her dismissal.
2. In their response to the ET1, the respondent resisted these claims and argued
that the complaint relating to the loyalty bonus was time-barred.
3. A case management preliminary hearing was held on 1 April 2021. At this
hearing EJ Meiklejohn issued orders for the respondent to provide further
20
information about the redundancy process and the loyalty service award
scheme, as well as for the claimant to identify a full-time comparator (or
comparators) in respect of her claim of less favourable treatment as a part-
time worker. Arrangements for the final hearing were also made. These
included that witness statements would be used and that the issue of whether
25
the non-payment of the loyalty service award was time-barred would be
determined at the final hearing.
4107962/2020 Page 3
4. This hearing was scheduled to determine the claim. It took place remotely
given the implications of the COVID-19 pandemic. It was a virtual hearing held
by way of the Cloud Video Platform.
5. As the claimant was unrepresented, I explained the purpose and procedure
for the Hearing and that I was required to adhere to the Overriding Objective
5
under Rule 2 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of
Procedure) Regulations 2013 to deal with cases justly and fairly and to ensure
that parties were on an equal footing.
6. A joint bundle of productions was lodged by the respondent prior to the
hearing and the claimant confirmed that the respondent had provided her with
10
a copy of it. At the outset of the hearing the productions were checked with
parties and the witness statements were added to it. (D141-152) The
importance of referring to the relevant documents when giving their evidence
was explained to parties.
7. At the outset of the hearing, Mr Hughes for the respondent advised that the
15
respondent was no longer insisting on the time bar point in relation to the
loyalty service award and that it was no longer in dispute the claimant was
entitled to it. He understood that the respondent shall make this award to the
claimant in the form of compensation to the same amount. However, the issue
as to the amount of the additional holiday pay element of the award remained
20
in dispute due to whether it was required to be calculated on a pro-rata basis
for the claimant as a part-time employee.
8. The claimant gave evidence. Mr Furie, respondent IT Director and Ms
Keirnan, respondent Admin Manager, gave evidence on behalf of the
respondent.
25
9. As Ms Keirnan was not available to give evidence until the second day of the
hearing, it was agreed that Mr Furie would give his evidence first and that the
claimant would give her evidence after him. After hearing Ms Keirnan’s
evidence on the second day, the claimant was afforded a further opportunity
To continue reading
Request your trial