Case 1807572/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms J Wilson v Redtronic Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 1807572/2019
- Decision date
- 4 June 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Maidment Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms J Wilson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 4 June 2020 Employment Judge Maidment issued a judgment on withdrawal under rule 52 in case 1807572/2019. The tribunal dismissed, following the claimant's withdrawal, the listed complaints of pregnancy discrimination at issues 1.2, 1.3, 1.5 and 1.19, together with the Public Interest Disclosure detriment at issue 8.5 concerning holiday pay.
The judgment does not determine the merits of those complaints and records no remedy in respect of them. It also notes that the claimant's remaining claims were to proceed to a hearing listed for 13 to 17 July 2020.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | Complaint 1.2: allowing other employees to sit in the gluing department while the claimant remained on her feet for most of the day. Dismissed following withdrawal. | Dismissed | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | Complaint 1.3: amending the claimant's duties for two weeks. Dismissed following withdrawal. | Dismissed | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | Complaint 1.5: SR shouting at the claimant on 3 July 2019 about not doing her job and getting BX lamps out, and saying that if they did she would not do it anyway in an attempt not to keep the claimant in her supervisor role. Dismissed following withdrawal. | Dismissed | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | Complaint 1.19: the respondent advertising the Resin supervisor role on its website before the claimant resigned. Dismissed following withdrawal. | Dismissed | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Whistleblowing | Public Interest Disclosure detriment 8.5: refusing to pay the correct amount of holiday pay. Dismissed following withdrawal. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 52
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.