Case 1403249/2022 · Employment Tribunal
- MR T ASHBY (TRADE UNION REPRESENTATIVE) FOR THE v Respondent — 2025
- Case reference
- 1403249/2022
- Decision date
- 22 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Panel members
- Ms D England, Mr C Williams
Parties
1 namedClaimant
- MR T ASHBY (TRADE UNION REPRESENTATIVE) FOR THE
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningIn the liability judgment, which this remedy judgment summarises, the tribunal upheld constructive unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, discrimination arising from disability, and failure to make reasonable adjustments. It did not uphold all of the claimant’s complaints, including the earlier KS-related grievance/sanction allegations and the later secondary-employment complaints.
The upheld disability findings concerned the return-to-work process from February and March 2021. The tribunal recorded that the claimant had already indicated by November 2020 that she wanted to leave operational firefighting, and that Occupational Health advice was that a return to active duties was likely to risk relapse. It found that the respondent nevertheless required her to attend a return-to-work meeting, commenced disciplinary action after she did not attend, and upheld the sanction on appeal. The tribunal held that the respondent should have considered redeployment to Green Book roles across Gloucestershire County Council.
On injury to feelings, the tribunal accepted that much of the claimant’s distress had begun before the upheld acts, particularly because of the KS events, and that later second-job allegations also prolonged or exacerbated the impact. It therefore rejected the claimant’s top-end figure, accepted that the award should be in the middle Vento band, and fixed injury to feelings at £12,500 at the lower end of that band.
For financial loss, the tribunal accepted pre-dismissal loss of £9,588.12. It then limited post-dismissal loss to £7,440.84, finding that the claimant had failed to mitigate by limiting her applications to fire-safety roles despite the successful case that redeployment across Gloucestershire County Council should have been considered. It also awarded a £3,426 basic award, £500 for loss of statutory rights, £2,617.65 notice pay, and interest of £3,625 on injury to feelings plus £2,166.12 on financial losses, giving a stated total award of £42,853.73.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | Constructive unfair dismissal was upheld on the return-to-work / disciplinary process. The tribunal awarded a £3,426 basic award and £500 for loss of statutory rights. | Upheld | — | £3,926 |
| Wrongful dismissal | Wrongful dismissal / notice pay was upheld and awarded at £2,617.65. | Upheld | — | £2,618 |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal upheld discrimination arising from disability and the failure to make reasonable adjustments in relation to the March 2021 return-to-work / redeployment issues. It did not uphold all earlier KS-related or second-job complaints. The award included £12,500 injury to feelings, £9,588.12 pre-dismissal loss, and £7,440.84 post-dismissal loss; interest was awarded separately. | Upheld | Disability | £29,529 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £42,854
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £3,426
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £20,147
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
2 references- middle Vento band
- failure to mitigate
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.