Case 1401909/2019 · Employment Tribunal
in person For the v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 1401909/2019
- Decision date
- 13 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gray Dated
- Panel members
- Mr J Shah, Mr P Flanagan
Parties
1 namedClaimant
in person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs J Niland brought claims against Government Facility Services Limited for constructive unfair dismissal, automatic unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, and discrimination because of pregnancy or maternity. The case was heard at Bristol by video on 10 to 13 August 2020 before Employment Judge Gray with lay members Mr J Shah and Mr P Flanagan.
The Tribunal's unanimous judgment, dated 13 August 2020, was that each complaint failed and was dismissed. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing, and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested by either party within 14 days.
No monetary remedy is recorded in the written judgment record.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The complaint is described in the judgment as constructive unfair dismissal. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The complaint is described in the judgment as automatic unfair dismissal. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The complaint is described as discrimination because of pregnancy or maternity. | Dismissed | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
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.