Mrs Thompson v Miller Graphics Corniche Ltd: 1802326/2021
| Judgment Date | 10 January 2022 |
| Citation | 1802326/2021 |
| Date | 10 January 2022 |
| Published date | 19 January 2022 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Unfair Dismissal |
Case No: 1802326/2021
10.7 Judgment with reasons – rule 62 March 2017
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: Mrs Thompson
Respondent: Miller Graphics Corniche Limited
Heard at: Leeds (by video) On: 6 and 7 December 2021
Before: Employment Judge Knowles
Ms E McAvoy
Mr Q Shah
Representation
Claimant: Mr Germaine, Claimant’s friend
Respondent: Mr Shepherd, Solicitor
RESERVED JUDGMENT
The unanimous Judgment of the Employment Tribunal is that:
1. The Claimant’s claim of age discrimination is not well founded and fails.
2. The Claimant’s claim of unfair dismissal is well founded and succeeds.
3. There was a 25% chance that had a fair redundancy process been followed
by the Respondent the Claimant would, in any event, have been dismissed
by reason of redundancy. Any compensatory award shall be reduced by
25%.
4. There shall be no uplift or reduction in compensation for failure to follow the
ACAS Code because there is no statutory ACAS Code on redundancies;
ACAS publish only Guidance upon redundancy.
5. A remedies hearing shall now be listed to be heard by this Tribunal by video
with an estimated length of hearing of 1 day.
RESERVED REASONS
Evidence
1. This hearing was undertaken remotely by Cloud Video Platform.
2. It was a final hearing heard over 2 days in terms of liability.
Case No: 1802326/2021
10.7 Judgment with reasons – rule 62 March 2017
3. The parties produced a joint bundle of documents, 229 pages. We were also
provided with an excel spreadsheet containing the Claimant’s time capture records
although this was not referred to other than through the documents produced from that
which are contained in the bundle. We were also provided with a skills matrix which was
added as page 229.
4. The Respondent called the following as witnesses:
a. Ms Barnes, General Manager (dismissing manager)
b. Mr Bataillie, Managing Director (appeals manager).
5. The Claimant also gave evidence.
6. Each witness produced a written statement of evidence.
7. Each witness took an oath by affirmation.
8. Both parties produced written submissions.
Issues
9. The Claimant’s case concerns her dismissal, purportedly by reason of redundancy,
on 23 December 2020. The Claimant claims that her dismissal was unfair and that she
was selected because of her age (62 at the time of dismissal).
10. The issues for us to consider are as follows.
Unfair dismissal
11. What was the reason or principal reason for dismissal? The respondent says the
reason was redundancy.
12. If the reason was redundancy, did the respondent act reasonably in all the
circumstances in treating that as a sufficient reason to dismiss the claimant. The Tribunal
will usually decide, in particular, whether:
13. The respondent adequately warned and consulted the claimant;
14. The respondent adopted a reasonable selection decision, including its approach to
a selection pool;
15. The respondent took reasonable steps to find the claimant suitable alternative
employment;
16. Dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses.
Direct age discrimination
17. The Claimant says her age group is 60 to 65 and she compares herself with people
in the age group 50 or less.
18. Did the respondent do the following things:
a. Dismiss the Claimant?
19. Was that less favourable treatment?
The Tribunal will decide whether the claimant was treated worse than someone else
was treated. There must be no material difference between their circumstances and
To continue reading
Request your trial