Case 1804013/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v YDLS Commercial Cleaning Ltd (sued as Your Dirty Little Secret) — 2021
- Case reference
- 1804013/2019
- Decision date
- 31 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Ms Belita Costa, was dismissed by YDLS Commercial Cleaning Ltd on 29 May 2019 after a disciplinary meeting on 28 May 2019. The tribunal accepted the respondent's evidence that she had not been working her contracted hours at Marshalls Mill and had stopped signing in and out for a prolonged period, and that CCTV and site observations supported the conclusion that she and a colleague had left site early on 24 May 2019 and did not return. It found that the respondent genuinely believed misconduct had occurred, had reasonable grounds for that belief, and that the Burchell test was satisfied.
The tribunal also found that the dismissal letter dated 24 May 2019 had been prepared before any investigation discussion or disciplinary hearing, so the procedure was imperfect and the dismissal was therefore unfair on procedural grounds. However, it held that the underlying conduct amounted to gross misconduct, that the respondent's conclusion fell within the band of reasonable responses under section 98(4) ERA 1996, and that dismissal would have resulted in any event had a fair procedure been followed. Because the tribunal found the claimant contributed 100% to her dismissal, it concluded that it would not be just and equitable to make either a basic award or a compensatory award.
The separate unlawful deduction from wages claim concerned delayed payment of £640.38 due on 30 April 2019. The tribunal found that the payment had been made later in instalments and was therefore remedied by the time of the hearing, so that claim was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the dismissal was for conduct relating to the claimant not working her contracted hours and not signing in and out over a period of about eight months, with the respondent also relying on loss of trust and confidence. The dismissal was procedurally unfair because the dismissal letter had been prepared before the disciplinary meeting, but the tribunal found the Burchell test was satisfied and that dismissal would have occurred in any event. The tribunal held it would not be just and equitable to award a basic or compensatory award because the claimant contributed 100% to her dismissal. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim concerned late payment of April wages of £640.38. The tribunal found the payment was late and was an unlawful deduction at the date it was due, but that the shortfall had been fully remedied by the date of judgment, so the claim failed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- Burchell test
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- Iceland Frozen Foods
- Foley v Post Office
- HSBC Bank v Madden
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.