Employment Tribunals

Case Number: 1301530/2021 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr Stephen Stamper Respondent: Datastor Systems Ltd Heard at: Birmingham (by CVP video hearing) On: 25 and 26 July 2022 Before: Employment Judge Hena Representation Claimant: Mr Stamper in Person Respondent: Ms L Badham - Counsel REMEDY JUDGMENT The Tribunal’s findings in respect of remedy in this claim are: 1. As conceded by the respondent the dismissal of the claimant was unfair as the incorrect procedure was applied. 2. The reasoning for dismissal was one of redundancy and not a sham procedure given that it has been shown to the Tribunal that there was a takeover, with changes to the business as a result and others working for the respondent had been made redundant. 3. For the unfair dismissal of the claimant there is a nil basic pay award as the claimant received redundancy pay from the respondent which has offset any basic award that would be awarded. 4. Compensatory Award (i) Loss to date when would have been made redundant (inc loss of statutory rights& pension, deducting Polkey) £7,602.03. TOTAL AWARD £7,602.03 Employment Judge Hena 26 July 2022 Notes Reasons for the judgment having been given orally at the hearing, written reasons will not be provided unless a request was made by either party at the hearing or a written request is presented by either party within 14 days of the sending of this written record of the decision. Public access to employment tribunal decisions Judgments and reasons for the judgments are published, in full, online at www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions shortly after a copy has been sent to the claimant(s) and respondent(s) in a case. Case Number: 1301530/2021 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr Stephen Stamper Respondent: Datastor Systems Ltd Heard at: Birmingham (by CVP video hearing) On: 26 July 2022 Before: Employment Judge Hena Representation Claimant: Mr Stamper in Person Respondent: Ms L Badham - Counsel COSTS JUDGMENT The Tribunal’s judgement in respect of the costs application made by the respondent at the end of the remedy hearing is as follows: 1. Pursuant to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, rules 74(1), 76(1)(a) and (2), 77, 78(1)(a), 82 and 84 and the cases of Monaghan v Close Thornton EAT/0003/01 and AQ Limited v Holden [2012] IRLR 648 the respondent’s costs application for Counsel’s fees for the 2 day hearings on 25 and 26 July 2022 is refused. Employment Judge Hena 26 July 2022 Notes Reasons for the judgment having been given orally at the hearing, written reasons will not be provided unless a request was made by either party at the hearing or a written request is presented by either party within 14 days of the sending of this written record of the decision. Public access to employment tribunal decisions Judgments and reasons for the judgments are published, in full, online at www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions shortly after a copy has been sent to the claimant(s) and respondent(s) in a case.