Case 1308123/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Rano Karra v Cube Manufacturing Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 1308123/2019
- Decision date
- 8 June 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mensah Date
- Venue
- Birmingham West
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Rano Karra
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal accepted that the claimant, Mrs Rano Karra, had continuously been employed by Cube Manufacturing Limited from 16.07.2016 and rejected the respondent's case that her employment had ended in 2018 and restarted on a fresh contract. It found the later documents dated 02.07.2018 were not a new contract or agreed variation, accepted the claimant's evidence that she had been pressurised into signing them without understanding their content, and treated the respondent's evidence on those events as unreliable.
The holiday pay claim was conceded by the respondent at the start of the hearing. The tribunal ordered payment of £1,166.25 for untaken, accrued and carried over holiday pay for the employment ending 16.09.2019. The claim for notice pay was also made out, but no separate award was made because the tribunal had already found in the claimant's favour on unfair dismissal and sought to avoid double recovery.
On unfair dismissal, the tribunal found the respondent failed to show a potentially fair reason for dismissal such as redundancy or some other substantial reason, and failed to show it acted reasonably in all the circumstances. It accepted there was no proper consultation, no meaningful discussion of alternatives, no evidence of a fair selection process or alternative employment search, and no right of appeal. The tribunal also recorded the complete failure to follow the ACAS Code in both dismissal and grievance procedures.
The remedy for unfair dismissal comprised a basic award of £1,096.88, a compensatory award of £7,464.00 for eight months' net loss of pay, a 25% uplift of £2,227.72 for the ACAS Code failure, and £350 for loss of statutory rights. The tribunal did not award the claimed expenses, did not award notice pay separately, and stated that the prescribed element for recoupment was £9,691.72 net, with an excess of £2,613.13.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The respondent accepted at the start of the hearing that untaken, accrued and carried over holiday pay was owed for the employment ending on 16.09.2019. | Upheld | — | £1,166 |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal found the claim for notice pay was made out, but made no separate award to avoid double recovery because the claimant succeeded on unfair dismissal. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found no potentially fair reason for dismissal and no reasonable procedure: there was no proper consultation, no appeal, and no evidence of redundancy or another substantial reason. The remedy included a basic award, compensatory award, 25% ACAS uplift and £350 for loss of statutory rights. | Upheld | — | £11,139 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £12,305
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £1,097
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £7,464
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
5 references- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- Williams v Compair Maxam Limited [1982] IRLR 83
- band of reasonable responses test
- ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures
- s.108 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.