Case 1602735/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs J Pritchard v Russell Magor for and on behalf of the Management Committee of Pontnewydd Working Men’s Club — 2021
- Case reference
- 1602735/2020
- Decision date
- 10 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brace Claimant
- Venue
- Cardiff
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs J Pritchard
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Mrs J Pritchard, the Club's bar manager, was dismissed on 18 September 2020 following events on 23 August 2020 when she was at the Club as a patron for her birthday. The Respondent's written communications and evidence moved between concerns about the Club staying open after 11pm, drinks being supplied without payment, the Claimant being drunk, and alleged COVID-19/social distancing breaches. The tribunal held that the principal reason for dismissal was the belief that drinks had not been paid for, with the after-hours issue also forming part of the decision-making.
The tribunal rejected the Claimant's case that she was dismissed because of bullying complaints against Gary Whittington. It found that the Club Committee, rather than the three-member disciplinary panel, made the dismissal decision. It also found that the process was unfair because the Claimant was not interviewed in the investigation, was not given the evidence in advance, was not told the allegations with sufficient particularity, and was not given a fair chance to answer the unpaid-drinks allegation or the other matters said to justify dismissal.
Applying section 98 ERA 1996 and the Burchell principles, the tribunal concluded that the investigation, disciplinary hearing, appeal, and overall decision to dismiss were outside the range of reasonable responses. It also found that the appeal did not cure the earlier defects because the same committee members sat on the appeal and were only prepared to consider new evidence. The tribunal rejected both Polkey reduction and contributory fault, so no reduction was made in principle, but remedy was adjourned for a later hearing and no award was made in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Liability only; the tribunal found the dismissal unfair and adjourned remedy to a later hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
17 references- s.94 ERA 1996
- s.95(1)(a) ERA 1996
- s.98(2) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- Burchell test
- Post Office v Foley
- Taylor v OCS Group Ltd
- Iceland Frozen Foods Ltd v Jones
- Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd v Hitt
- London Ambulance Service NHS Trust v Small
- Polkey v A E Dayton Services Ltd
- Software 2000 Ltd v Andrews
- W Devis & Sons Ltd v Atkins
- Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank v Wardle
- Nelson v BBC (No 2)
- Steen v ASP Packaging Ltd
- Singh v London Country Bus Services Ltd
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.