Case 1805139/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs C James v Gilmour Foods Limited Heard: In Leeds and by CVP — 2022
- Case reference
- 1805139/2021
- Decision date
- 24 June 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge JM Wade
- Panel members
- Mr K Smith, Mr R Webb
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs C James
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that the claimant's section 11 references were well founded because the respondent had failed to provide itemised pay slips and a statement of employment particulars. It also set out the claimant's section 1 particulars at the date of claim, including continuous employment from 28 August 2015, pay of £12 gross per hour paid weekly in arrears, an annual bonus of £2,000 gross paid in two £1,000 instalments in July and December, the job title contract manager, a 40-hour working week, and the employer's address as the place of work.
The tribunal found there were no unnotified deductions made and that the pay slips later provided accurately reflected deductions and pay paid to the claimant, but it did not award compensation for the section 11 findings. It dismissed the claimant's holiday pay complaint and dismissed her complaints under section 18 of the Equality Act 2010. The decision was unanimous.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The tribunal found the claimant's section 11 references well founded in respect of failures to provide itemised pay slips and a statement of employment particulars. It made declarations as to the section 1 particulars but awarded no compensation. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The claimant's complaint for payment in respect of holiday pay was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The claimant's complaints of contraventions of section 18 of the Equality Act 2010 were dismissed. | Dismissed | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
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.