Case 1405856/2023 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2024
- Case reference
- 1405856/2023
- Decision date
- 18 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Panel members
- Mrs R Barrett, Ms R A Clarke
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs Louisa Mordew started work for Park’s of Hamilton (Coach Hirers) Ltd on 3 April 2023 and was summarily dismissed on 14 November 2023. The tribunal found that her 15 October 2023 Petition Letter about holiday pay and lunch breaks was written and sent by her, even though she later denied that it was her letter. It held that the letter was a genuine complaint about statutory rights, including holiday pay and Working Time Regulations rights, but this did not determine the dismissal issue.
On the automatic unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal accepted that the Petition Letter was an assertion of relevant statutory rights for the purposes of s.104 ERA 1996. It nevertheless found that the reason, or principal reason, for dismissal was not the assertion of those rights. The respondent dismissed her because it believed she had been wilfully insubordinate, had refused to follow a reasonable management instruction to attend a meeting, had undermined senior management, and had contributed to a breakdown of trust and confidence. The claim for unfair dismissal was therefore dismissed.
On the direct sex discrimination claim, the tribunal preferred the respondent’s evidence that Mr Hoggan did not shout at or abuse the claimant during the 19 October 2023 telephone call, so that allegation failed on the facts. It also found that the seven male drivers who had supported the Petition Letter were not valid comparators for the dismissal decision, because the claimant was the only employee believed to have engaged in the conduct relied on for dismissal and the other drivers later met the respondent individually. The tribunal concluded that there were no facts from which it could infer discrimination because of sex, and the sex discrimination claim was dismissed. No award was made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal claim under s.104 ERA 1996 based on the 15 October 2023 Petition Letter about holiday pay and lunch breaks. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | Direct sex discrimination claim based on the 19 October 2023 telephone call and the claimant's dismissal; the tribunal found neither allegation was made out on the evidence. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
10 references- s.104 ERA 1996
- s.136 EqA 2010
- Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary
- Igen Ltd v Wong
- Madarassy v Nomura International Plc
- Nagarajan v London Regional Transport
- Amnesty International v Ahmed
- Ayodele v Citylink Ltd
- s.207A TULRCA 1992
- ACAS Code of Practice 1 on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures 2015
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.