Case 1309551/2020 · Employment Tribunal
in person For the v Respondent — 2021
- Case reference
- 1309551/2020
- Decision date
- 7 April 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dean
Parties
1 namedClaimant
in person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Dean, sitting alone at Birmingham by CVP on 6 and 7 April 2021, heard Mrs J Preece's claims against The British Red Cross Society. The tribunal found that she had not been dismissed unfairly or at all, so the constructive unfair dismissal complaint was dismissed. The wrongful dismissal complaint in respect of notice pay also failed and was dismissed.
The tribunal further held that the respondent had made no unlawful deduction from the claimant's pay. It found that, on termination, the respondent deducted from any outstanding salary and accrued and untaken holiday pay the sums lawfully due to it from the claimant, so that claim was dismissed. The respondent's counterclaim succeeded in the sum of £4,637.56, and the tribunal also ordered the claimant to pay a contribution to the respondent's costs limited to £2,480 under rule 76(1).
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was not dismissed unfairly or at all by the respondent and dismissed the constructive unfair dismissal complaint. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The complaint for wrongful dismissal in respect of notice pay did not succeed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held that the respondent made no unlawful deduction from the claimant's pay. It found the deductions from outstanding salary and accrued and untaken holiday pay on termination were sums lawfully due to the respondent. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The respondent's counterclaim succeeded and the claimant was ordered to pay £4,637.56. The written judgment does not identify the counterclaim's legal basis. | Upheld | — | £4,638 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £0
- across all upheld claims
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.