Miss Elizabeth Kenyon v Mr Steven Carter — 2023

The tribunal found that Miss Elizabeth Kenyon was employed by Mr Steven Carter's business, Dorset Media, from 17 October 2022 as Head of Sales and Marketing. Her role was mainly managerial and organisational, although she also carried out some sales work. The tribunal accepted that she was a worker and an employee for the purposes of the relevant statutory provisions. Her contract provided for fixed hours, one month's notice, holiday entitlement, and a monthly retainer plus allowances and commission.

The respondent accepted that the claimant was owed wages for 1-16 December 2022 and one day's unused holiday on termination. The tribunal held that the failure to pay the December wages was an unauthorised deduction from wages under section 13 ERA 1996 and awarded £1,703.23 gross. It also awarded £107 gross for untaken holiday pay under regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998.

On notice pay, the tribunal found that the email sent on 16 December 2022 was a summary dismissal with immediate effect, not notice. It rejected the respondent's case that the claimant had committed a fundamental breach by missing sales targets, failing to work diligently, failing to devote her time to sales, or failing to supervise her team. The tribunal found that she did not have a personal sales target at the relevant time, that her work in the first weeks was primarily management, recruitment and business development, and that the 8 December discussion was not a performance meeting. It also found that the later audit of calls and emails and the fact that she sent Experian data to her personal email after termination did not justify summary dismissal. The tribunal therefore held that she was entitled to one month's notice and awarded £2,580 net damages for breach of contract, noting that the gross notice figure would have been £3,300.

The respondent's £100 contractual counterclaim failed. Although the tribunal accepted that the devices could not be accessed without passwords, it found no express contractual term dealing with passwords and no basis for implying a term requiring the claimant to provide them. The respondent had not asked her for the passwords before issuing the counterclaim, and the claim was dismissed. The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay a total of £4,390.23.