Veitch Penny LLP - Exeter | Crediton, Devon

Case

O’Neill (1) Williams (2) v Muilkilt Ltd t/a Great Eastern Foods
Employment Tribunal - (21 March 2003)

Issues

(1) Unfair dismissal
(2) Sex Discrimination
(3) Part Time workers

Facts

Since 1997, the female Applicants were employed as pastry rollers. They and a few others worked 16 hours per week. Most of the other employees of the company worked full time.

During the course of their service, the company was purchased by the Respondent who continued operating the business. The employees continued to work as before.

Then in February 2002, the Applicants were given one week’s notice of termination. The Respondent informed them that it was reducing its workforce due to financial difficulties. The Respondent had employed a number of Chinese employees who were paid less than the National Minimum Wage. The Respondent ignored the Applicants’ claims for redundancy payments.

Claims were made to the Employment Tribunal to which the Respondent replied stating that the Applicants’ were made redundant due to the Respondent’s financial difficulties. The Respondent did not attend the hearing itself.

Decision

The Employment Tribunal, in response to the claims of breach of contract, unfair dismissal, less favourable treatment in breach of the Part Time Workers Regulations and sex discrimination, found in favour of the Applicants.

(1) Due to the continuity of employment afforded to them by virtue of the TUPE transfer to the Respondent, they were entitled to four weeks notice. They had only received one week. Given they were only given one week’s notice, they were each awarded damages of £221.40 (i.e. three weeks pay).

(2) The Tribunal found that the dismissals were not for redundancy, but merely a way to obtain cheaper labour. It was noted there was no consultation or attempt to locate alternative work for them. Awards were accordingly made for each employee totalling £6,080.20 including payments for future loss and loss of statutory rights.

(3) Under the Part Time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000, both Applicants had the right not to be treated less favourably than a comparable full time employee. The Applicants were found to have been less favourably treated – the Respondent had no objective reason for its conduct in this regard. No additional award was made under this head as the Applicants had been compensated by the Unfair Dismissal awards.

(4) Likewise the Employment Tribunal found the Applicants were less favourable treated on the grounds of their sex. The Respondent did not respond to this allegation in its Notice of Appearance, and it was inferred there was discrimination on grounds of the Applicants’ sex. Following the case of Vento, the case came into the lowest band and the Applicants were awarded £2,500 for injury to feelings.

Comments

This case is a useful illustration in two regards, namely the operation of the recent case of Vento as a measure of damages.