Case 1401034/2020 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Amtec Holdings Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 1401034/2020
- Decision date
- 30 October 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gray Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Southampton on 13 October 2020, Employment Judge Gray recorded judgment for Mrs A Pelc against Amtec Holdings Ltd. The respondent did not attend, was not represented, and no response had been entered, so Rule 21 applied. The tribunal held that the claimant was unfairly constructively dismissed on the grounds of her maternity, was subject to sex discrimination, and was owed unpaid holiday pay.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £19,299.98 in total. The written record itemised that sum as a basic award of £4,153.84, expenses of £799, loss of pension contributions of £765, injury to feelings of £10,000, total interest of £498.28, loss of statutory employment rights of £519.23, and holiday pay of £2,564.63.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The tribunal recorded that the claimant was unfairly constructively dismissed on the grounds of her maternity. The written record does not split the award between the dismissal and discrimination elements. | Upheld | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | The tribunal recorded that the claimant was subject to sex discrimination. The written record does not apportion the award to this head alone. | Upheld | Sex | — |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal recorded that the claimant was owed unpaid holiday pay. | Upheld | — | £2,565 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £19,300
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £4,154
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £4,648
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.