Case 1803252/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs A Kay v Jean Ferguson on her own behalf and on behalf of all the other members of the executive committee of the Yorkshire Countrywomen’s Association at the relevant time — 2024
- Case reference
- 1803252/2023
- Decision date
- 18 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cox Representation
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedKey findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs Kay worked for the Yorkshire Countrywomen’s Association as an office administrator from 16 July 2019. The Tribunal found she was an employee from the outset. Her claim for accrued holiday pay due on termination was resolved by consent, the claims for breach of contract relating to unpaid expenses and retained personal belongings were withdrawn during the hearing, and the parties agreed that if she succeeded on constructive dismissal she was entitled to £660 notice pay.
The Tribunal rejected most of the conduct alleged to have undermined trust and confidence, including the workload complaints, alleged bullying at the January and February 2023 committee meetings, the confidentiality request, the office lock change, the missing personnel file, and most of the grievance-handling criticism. It found, however, that four matters cumulatively damaged the relationship of trust and confidence: failure to pay SSP from the beginning of March 2023, copying Miss Ferguson’s 1 April 2023 email to the office inbox where Mr Rowbotham could read it, asking Mrs Kay in the 2 May 2023 letter to restate grievances she had already identified, and implying in that same letter that her use of cash to pay wages was improper.
On that basis the Tribunal held that the Committee constructively dismissed Mrs Kay on 15 May 2023. It had already accepted that the Respondent had no potentially fair reason under s.98(1) ERA 1996, so the dismissal was unfair. For remedy, the Tribunal assessed service from 16 July 2019 to 15 May 2023, age 48 and weekly pay of £165; it calculated a basic award of £742.50, a compensatory award of £6,785 before reduction, reduced the compensatory award by 30% to £4,749.50, and awarded £350 for loss of statutory rights. The final unfair dismissal award was £5,492, bringing the overall monetary awards to £6,746 including the holiday pay and notice pay.
Claims and outcomes
4 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | Accrued holiday pay due on termination was resolved by consent and the Respondent was ordered to pay £594. | Settled | — | £594 |
| Breach of contract | Claims for damages for unpaid expenses and retained personal belongings were dismissed after the Claimant withdrew them during the hearing. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The Tribunal found the Claimant was constructively dismissed and, because the Respondent accepted there was no potentially fair reason under s.98(1) ERA 1996, the dismissal was unfair. | Upheld | — | £5,492 |
| Breach of contract | Damages for failure to give four weeks' contractual notice of termination were awarded in the agreed sum of £660. | Upheld | — | £660 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,746
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £743
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £4,750
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
8 references- implied term of mutual trust and confidence
- constructive dismissal
- s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996
- s.98(1) ERA 1996
- s.139(b)(i) ERA 1996
- s.123(1) ERA 1996
- s.122(2) ERA 1996
- s.123(6) ERA 1996
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.