Subscribe to trusted local news
In a time of both misinformation and too much information, quality journalism is more crucial than ever. By subscribing, you can help us get the story right.
- Subscription costs less than £1 a week with an annual plan.
Already a subscriber? Log in here.
09
Sept 2024
Ripon firm ordered to pay founder £115,000 for unfair dismissal
Ripon premium meat retailer Farmsion has been ordered to pay founder John Pallagi £115,352 for unfair dismissal.
An employment tribunal in Leeds issued the judgment after a three-day hearing last month.
The tribunal found the company, which acquired the organisation from administration last year, failed to comply with TUPE regulations.
Former restaurateur Mr Pallagi launched Farmison in 2011 and built it up to become one of Ripon's biggest employers.
But the company, whose use of heritage breeds attracted clients including Harrods and Fortnum & Mason, fell into administration last year.
The Stray Ferret reported at the time that Mr Pallagi was in talks with "two high profile Yorkshire businesmen" about forming a consortium to save the company.
But the consortium that eventually rescued Farmison from administration included former Asda chief executive Andy Clarke and Chilli Marketing founder Gareth Whittle — but not Mr Pallagi.
Employment Judge Maidment's judgment said FL Meat Realisations Ltd, the legal name of the company which went into administration, and Farmison & Co Ltd, the legal name of the company which acquired it from administration, were "jointly and severally liable".
The judge added:
As compensation for unfair dismissal, the second respondent (Farmison & Co Ltd) is ordered to pay to the claimant a basic award of £9,645 and a compensatory award capped at the sum of £105,707.
The Stray Ferret asked Mr Pallagi to respond to the judge's decision. He said:
Being unfairly dismissed is a devastating experience for any employee. As the founder it made the employment tribunal process very personally difficult and one which will take a long recovery process.
We also asked Farmison to respond and whether it planned to appeal. A spokesperson said:
The dispute relates to a period when Farmison was in administration. It's awaiting the full reasoning why the tribunal concluded that the new company is also liable in respect of the award. Once it receives that detail, it will then decide on the appropriate course of action.
0