Case 1805532/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Wolseley v Ineos Acetyls UK Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 1805532/2022
- Decision date
- 6 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Howden-Evans Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Wolseley
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case at Leeds by video on 23, 24 and 27 February 2023 before Employment Judge Howden-Evans. The operative decision records that the complaint of unfair constructive dismissal was not well founded, meaning the tribunal found that the respondent did not constructively dismiss Mr J Wolseley.
The same judgment also rejected the claim under Regulation 15 of the Working Time Regulations 1998. The tribunal found there had not been a breach of that regulation and that the respondent did not owe Mr Wolseley any holiday pay.
The extracted record contains only the tribunal's decision and a note that reasons were given orally at the hearing, so no further reasoning or remedy calculation is set out in the written text provided.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The judgment states that the complaint of unfair constructive dismissal was not well founded and that the respondent did not constructively dismiss the claimant. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment states that there was no breach of Regulation 15 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 and that the respondent did not owe the claimant any holiday pay. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.