Case 1304607/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs C Voice v ALM Electrical Solutions Ltd and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 1304607/2021
- Decision date
- 27 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Maxwell
- Venue
- Birmingham
- Panel members
- Mrs R Forrest, Mr P Davis
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mrs C Voice
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal sat in Birmingham on 24, 25, 26 and 27 April 2023 before Employment Judge Maxwell, Mrs R Forrest and Mr P Davis. The judgment records that the claimant, Mrs C Voice, succeeded in her unfair dismissal claim against the first respondent, ALM Electrical Solutions Ltd.
The tribunal also upheld the claimant's pregnancy discrimination claim against both respondents. By contrast, the indirect sex discrimination claim was dismissed, as was the part-time worker detriment claim. The redundancy payment claim was also dismissed.
In relation to pay, the tribunal upheld the unlawful deductions claim and the holiday pay claim against the first respondent. The extracted judgment text does not include the tribunal's reasons or any separate monetary awards, so no remedy breakdown can be recorded from the available extract.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the claim was well-founded and succeeded against the first respondent. No remedy figure is recorded in the extracted text. | Upheld | — | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The judgment states that the pregnancy discrimination claim was well-founded and succeeded against both respondents. No remedy figure is recorded in the extracted text. | Upheld | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Sex discrimination | The judgment states that the indirect sex discrimination claim was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Part-time worker regulations | The judgment states that the part-time worker detriment claim was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that the unlawful deductions claim was well-founded and succeeded against the first respondent. No remedy figure is recorded in the extracted text. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment states that the holiday pay claim was well-founded and succeeded against the first respondent. No remedy figure is recorded in the extracted text. | Upheld |
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.