Ms Fry v Cherish Cymru Ltd: 1600381/2020
| Judgment Date | 19 January 2021 |
| Citation | 1600381/2020 |
| Published date | 28 January 2021 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Redundancy |
Case Number: 1600381/ 2020
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant:
Ms Fry
Respondent:
Cherish Cymru Ltd
Heard at:
Cardiff (by video)
On: 8 January 2021
Before:
Employment Judge Harfield
Representation:
Claimant:
In person
Respondent:
Mr Kiff (also as a litigant in person)
RESERVED JUDGMENT
It is the decision of the Employment Judge sitting alone that:
1. The complaint of unfair dismissal is well founded. The claimant was unfairly
dismissed.
2. The respondent is ordered to pay the claimant compensation for unfair dismissal
in the sum of £600.00 basic award and £111.43 compensatory award.
3. The recoupment regulations do not apply.
4. The claim for a statutory redundancy payment is not well founded and is
dismissed.
REASONS
Introduction
1. By way of a claim form presented on 24 January 2020 the claimant complained
that she had been unfairly dismissed from her post as a carer with effect from 8
January 2020. That was the date on which she said she received a letter
terminating her employment following a meeting with Mr Kiff on 24 December
Case Number: 1600381/ 2020
2
2019. The claimant also indicated she was bringing a claim for a statutory
redundancy payment.
2. On 21 February 2020 the respondent presented an ET3 response form resisting
the complaints. The matter was originally due to be heard on 19 May 2020 but
the full hearing was postponed and converted to a case management telephone
hearing because of the Covid 19 pandemic. I made some case management
orders to get the case ready for this relisted hearing which ultimately took place
by way of video hearing due to ongoing public health restrictions.
3. I had before me a bundle containing both parties’ documents extending to 91
pages. The bundle included the written witness statements for Mr Kiff, Ms Fry
and her mother, Mrs Fry. I heard oral evidence from these witnesses and Ms Fry
and Mr Kiff were given the opportunity to make closing comments. In the event
they had little they wished to say to add to what was already before me. I
reserved my decision as Mr Kiff was due to leave for a vaccination at 2pm and
bearing in mind the current state of the pandemic and his occupation I did not
wish to obstruct that process.
4. In my case management order of 19 May 2020 I identified that Mr Kiff position
was that the claimant was dismissed for “some other substantial reason” and that
the decision to dismiss was based on a combination of factors:
• He believed that the claimant had lied in the meeting on 24 December
saying that she had not agreed to cover two calls for service users on 4
December 2019. (It is not in dispute that two visits to service users were
not covered by any employee of the respondent that day and also that
one of the service users was later found to have fallen - albeit it is not
known exactly when that fall happened or whether there is any link to the
non attendance);
• He had longer running concerns about the claimant’s sickness record and
reliability and he considered it was getting worse;
• The claimant’s reaction in the meeting and, in particular, what he
considered was a lack of remorse relating to the service user falling over.
He said that was the straw that broke the camel’s back;
• Overall, he said he had a loss of confidence in the relationship with the
claimant as employer and employee or the claimant’s attributes for
working in the caring profession.
5. In my case management order I identified the following liability (i.e. do the
claimant’s claims succeed) issues to be determined:
Unfair Dismissal
(a) What was the principal reason for dismissal and was it a potentially fair
one in accordance with sections 98(1) and (2) of the Employment Rights
Act 1996 (“ERA”)? The respondent asserts that it was some other
To continue reading
Request your trial