Case 2200356/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms. E. L. Croucher v The Spread Food Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2200356/2022
- Decision date
- 12 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge J Galbraith-Marten REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms. E. L. Croucher
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs. Croucher was employed by The Spread Food Ltd from 14 November 2021 as a sales and event manager, later described as a general manager, on a salary of £30,000 gross per year and a contractual one-month notice period. She resigned on 11 January 2022, but the respondent then dismissed her for gross misconduct by letter relying on six allegations. The unfair dismissal claim was struck out because she had not completed 2 years' continuous service.
On the wrongful dismissal claim, the tribunal considered each allegation relied on for summary dismissal. It accepted that the claimant had failed to send the requested video confirming that the Victoria Park storage unit was locked, but found this was a failure to follow a reasonable management instruction rather than gross misconduct. The tribunal also found the other allegations were not acts of gross misconduct, and it noted that describing the matter as a serious breach of protocol overstated it because no protocol had been in place. The tribunal concluded the conduct was not so serious as to amount to a repudiatory breach of contract, and that at most the claimant should have received a final written warning.
The wrongful dismissal claim therefore succeeded and the tribunal awarded one month’s net pay of £2,050. For holiday pay, the tribunal found the claimant had worked for 58 days, was entitled to 4.6 days' leave for that period, had taken 8 days' leave, had been paid for 6 days and had one day recouped from salary. It accepted that, had contractual notice been given, she would have accrued a further 2.33 days of leave, leaving 2 days accrued but unpaid. The tribunal awarded £230.88 gross for those 2 days at £14.43 per hour for 8 hours per day, subject to deductions for tax and national insurance.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out because the claimant did not have 2 years' continuous service with the respondent at the date of dismissal. | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Wrongful dismissal / notice pay claim; the tribunal found the dismissal was not justified as summary dismissal and awarded one month’s net pay. | Upheld | — | £2,050 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Holiday pay element under regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998; the tribunal found 2 days accrued but unpaid holiday. | Upheld | — | £231 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,281
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
5 references- 2 years' continuous service
- repudiatory breach of contract
- section 3 of the Employment Tribunal's Extension of Jurisdiction (England & Wales) Order 1994
- section 13(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- regulation 14(2) Working Time Regulations 1998
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.