Case 1801676/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms A White v Gymophobics (Beverley) Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 1801676/2023
- Decision date
- 24 November 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Miller
- Venue
- Hull
- Panel members
- Mr G Wareing, Ms S Scott
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms A White
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting with Employment Judge Miller and members Mr G Wareing and Ms S Scott, upheld one allegation of direct age discrimination: it found that Ms Webster made discriminatory comments in the meeting on 3 October 2022. The remaining complaints of direct age discrimination were dismissed as not well-founded, and the separate complaint of age-related harassment was also dismissed.
The tribunal upheld one unlawful deductions from wages complaint for the period 23 May 2022 to 28 October 2022, finding that the claimant had been paid less than the national minimum wage, particularly for morning shifts recorded as being for 6 hours or more. The complaints about non-payment of wages for attendance at training in May 2022 and deductions from final pay were dismissed on withdrawal, and the remaining unlawful deductions complaints were dismissed as not well-founded.
Under the Working Time Regulations 1998, the complaint concerning weekly rest under regulation 11 failed, but the complaint concerning a rest break under regulation 12 succeeded. The tribunal also found that when proceedings began the respondent was in breach of its duty to provide the claimant with a written statement of employment particulars, and recorded that the claimant's email of 17 September 2022 was a grievance for the purposes of the Acas Code of Practice.
The parties reached agreement, and the tribunal recorded that there would be no further hearing to determine remedy.
Claims and outcomes
10 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | The tribunal found that Ms Webster made discriminatory comments in the meeting on 3 October 2022. | Upheld | Age | — |
| Age discrimination | The remaining complaints of direct age discrimination were found not well-founded. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Harassment | The complaint of harassment related to age was found not well-founded. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages between 23 May 2022 and 28 October 2022 because the claimant was paid less than the national minimum wage, particularly on morning shifts recorded as 6 hours or more. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The complaint about non-payment of wages for attendance at training in May 2022 was dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The complaint about deductions from the claimant's final pay was dismissed on withdrawal. |
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.