Case 1602268/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Hermanowicz v City and Country Hotels Limited t/a The Royal Hotel Cardiff — 2022
- Case reference
- 1602268/2020
- Decision date
- 9 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Venue
- At Cardiff
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Hermanowicz
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Hermanowicz, employed from 10 September 2010, was found not to have had two separate contracts as the respondent alleged. The tribunal accepted that his established pattern of work was 40 hours of night shifts plus about four evening bar/kitchen shifts a week, and found that on 2 September 2020 the parties varied those arrangements so that he was only required for the four evening shifts. He was then offered voluntary redundancy on 30 September 2020, accepted it on 7 October 2020, and his employment ended on 31 October 2020.
The tribunal held that he was entitled to a statutory redundancy payment under s.135, s.162 and s.163 ERA 1996, calculated on a weekly wage of £196.20, 10 years' service and age 30, producing an award of £1,765.80. It also held that he remained entitled to 10 weeks' notice under s.86 ERA 1996; after credit for the notice pay already made, £848.79 gross remained outstanding. On holiday pay, the reasons calculate 2.5 days untaken leave at £119.90 gross, although the numbered order at paragraph 3 records £119.60.
The tribunal also found a breach of s.38 EA 2002 because the respondent had not provided a written statement of employment particulars at the outset. It awarded two weeks' pay, £392.40, rather than the higher statutory amount. The respondent's counterclaim was dismissed in full: allegations of notice breach, furlough overpayment, harassment/gross misconduct, unannounced attendance at the hotel, and £10,000 in defence costs were not made out.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Statutory redundancy payment under s.135 ERA 1996; tribunal rejected the respondent's two-contract case and found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy on 31 October 2020. | Upheld | — | £1,766 |
| Breach of contract | Damages for underpaid notice pay. The tribunal found the claimant was entitled to 10 weeks' notice under s.86 ERA 1996 and that £1,113.21 already paid had to be deducted from the £1,962 gross due. | Upheld | — | £849 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Holiday pay on termination for 2.5 days of untaken leave. The numbered order at paragraph 3 records £119.60, while the reasons at paragraphs 49 and 69 refer to £119.90. | Upheld | — | £120 |
| Other | Additional compensation under s.38 EA 2002 for failure to provide a written statement of employment particulars. The tribunal limited the award to two weeks' pay. | Upheld | — | £392 |
| Other | Respondent's counterclaim dismissed in full, including alleged notice breach, furlough overpayment, harassment/gross misconduct, unannounced attendance at the hotel, and £10,000 in defence costs. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,127
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
6 references- s.135 ERA 1996
- s.162 ERA 1996
- s.163 ERA 1996
- s.86 ERA 1996
- s.221 ERA 1996
- s.38 EA 2002
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.