Case 1804176/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Charlotte McGinn-Smith v Aire Management Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 1804176/2021
- Decision date
- 2 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Charlotte McGinn-Smith
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge D N Jones issued this rule 21 judgment on 2 November 2021 after the respondent failed to enter a response in time. On the material available, the tribunal found that Ms Charlotte McGinn-Smith had been unfairly dismissed because she made a protected disclosure to the City of Wakefield Metropolitan District Council, identified in the judgment as a prescribed person.
The tribunal awarded a compensatory award of £1,658.88, said to represent 8 weeks' loss of wages. It also ordered payment of £580.18 for 69.4 hours of untaken leave outstanding at termination and £869.44, being 4 weeks' pay, for failure to provide written particulars of employment. The total monetary award was £3,108.50.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Judgment states the claimant was unfairly dismissed for having made a protected disclosure to the City of Wakefield Metropolitan District Council, described as a prescribed person. | Upheld | — | £1,659 |
| Holiday pay | Award for 69.4 hours of untaken leave outstanding at the date of termination. | Upheld | — | £580 |
| Other | Award of 4 weeks' pay for failure to provide written particulars of employment; classified as other because the judgment does not assign it a dedicated claim_type. | Upheld | — | £869 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,109
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £1,659
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.