An accountant was unfairly dismissed by a company linked to island businessman Raj Chatha, a tribunal has ruled.

In a separate ruling, the tribunal awarded Janine Shimmin compensation for having been given no employment contract by EFB (IoM) and for the haphazard way she received payslips.

Miss Shimmin began her job at EFB, based at European House on Peel Road in Douglas, on February 11 last year.

Astonishingly, she had no idea she had actually been dismissed – while signed off with stress – almost two months before she quit her job.

It was disputed whether she was taken on as an employee or contractor, what role she was hired for or whether the position was temporary or permanent.

Her immediate initial task was ensuring the company’s readiness for a VAT inspection and resolving other accounting issues before a deadline of February 1, 2022.

The tribunal heard that Miss Shimmin, who was not a chartered accountant but whose CV listed considerable experience in this area, had difficulties in completing the task.

She said the urgent work on the interrelated corporate accounts had been complex and it was not disputed that they were in a mess.

EFB argued she was not as highly qualified as her CV had made out and that the job was beyond her skills.

She had made errors, was too slow and the company had to hire in another accountant to complete the job.

Miss Shimmin claimed that at her job interview she was offered a permanent role, possibly as financial director, although she was reluctant to take on that position until she was more familiar with the company.

Group director Lynne Allan’s evidence was that, as far as she was concerned, the arrangement was that Miss Shimmin was not employed by EFB and that she was a temp employed by an agency.

She denied that the complainant was offered and accepted the permanent post and insisted she had hired her for the temporary fixed-term role.

Ms Allan told the tribunal she had not provided a contract of employment for Miss Shimmin because she thought that she was not entitled to one as she was not an employee.

A draft contract for services was apparently prepared in September 2021 – some seven months after Miss Shimmin had started working for EFB but the complainant denied having ever seen the document and it turned out that it had never been given to her but was simply left on her desk.

The tribunal concluded that Miss Shimmin had acquired employment status, perhaps inadvertently, but that it was a temporary and fixed-term engagement.

It said that because of the way that EFB handled the paperwork, it was faced with a ‘bizarre’ and ‘astonishing‘ situation to resolve – whether she had been dismissed or whether this was a case of constructive dismissal.

Miss Allan said there had been an urgent decision to dismiss Miss Shimmin before she had worked for a full year.

Miss Shimmin had been signed off sick before Christmas 2021 and never returned to work. She said she had terminated her employment on March 30 this year.

But unknown to her, EFB considered it had terminated her employment by letter dated February 4 – although the complainant never received that letter. Ms Allan could not produce a copy of the letter because it had not been saved on the laptop she used, but she insisted that it had been posted.

In fact, given that Miss Shimmin was entitled to seven days’ notice anyway, mailing the letter on February 4 would only have taken effect after Miss Shimmin had completed her one year of employment so it was already too late to stop her gaining the protection that came from that.

The tribunal concluded that the dismissal was procedurally unfair but that, if fairly handled, the outcome would have been the same.

It therefore ruled that Miss Shimmin’s was entitled to just a basic award based on one-week’s wages which in her case was capped at £540, plus £335 compensation for loss of statutory rights.

She was also awarded a total of £2,700 for having had no terms and conditions of employment, late payment of salary and for not having accurate itemised payslips provided automatically and on time.

The tribunal found provision of payslips on time was ‘haphazard’.

It said it could find no reasonable excuse for this.

But the tribunal dismissed Miss Shimmin’s allegations that she had been bullied by Ms Allan after raising concerns about the legality of the office being open during the Covid lockdown.

EFB insisted that they were operating lawfully in the offices, and Ms Allan and Mr Chatha went to ‘considerable lengths‘ to enable Miss Shimmin to work from home in Ramsey as she wished, the tribunal found, even being provided with Mr Chatha’s own laptop.

The tribunal said that as Miss Shimmin‘s health was not exposed to danger, she was not entitled to compensation.

And it found that ‘uncorroborated examples and evidence’ of bullying given by Miss Shimmin were insufficient to substantiate this allegation.