Case 1300253/2021 · Employment Tribunal
DONNA MACKIE v James Stevens Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 1300253/2021
- Decision date
- 29 June 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge MANLEY
Parties
2 namedClaimant
DONNA MACKIE
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting remotely at Birmingham before Employment Judge Manley on 27 and 28 June 2022, found that Donna Mackie had been unfairly dismissed by James Stevens Ltd contrary to s.94(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It awarded £1,360.32 under s.112(4) ERA 1996, recording that this figure included both the basic and compensatory award.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to provide the claimant with a statement of employment particulars contrary to s.38(3) of the Employment Act 2002 and added £837.12 because it was just and equitable to do so. On the notice issue, it found that the respondent failed to give the three weeks' notice required by s.86 ERA 1996, which it described as a breach of contract and an unlawful deduction under s.13 ERA 1996, and it awarded £627.84 in damages.
Because the respondent failed to comply with the ACAS code of practice, the tribunal applied a 25% uplift under s.207A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, amounting to £497.04. The total gross award recorded by the tribunal was £3,322.32.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal awarded compensation under s.112(4) ERA 1996 and recorded that the £1,360.32 figure included both the basic and compensatory award. | Upheld | — | £1,360 |
| Other | The tribunal found a failure to provide a statement of employment particulars contrary to s.38(3) of the Employment Act 2002 and added the higher amount as just and equitable. | Upheld | — | £837 |
| Breach of contract | The judgment also referred to this notice issue as an unlawful deduction under s.13 ERA 1996; the award was not split between heads. | Upheld | — | £628 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,322
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
7 references- s.94(1) ERA 1996
- s.112(4) ERA 1996
- s.38(3) Employment Act 2002
- s.86 ERA 1996
- s.13 ERA 1996
- s.207A TULRCA 1992
- ACAS code of practice
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.