Case 2200843/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms A Beech, Trade Union representative For the v Mrs W Dove, HR & Payroll Administrator — 2019
- Case reference
- 2200843/2019
- Decision date
- 3 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Adkin Representations
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms A Beech, Trade Union representative For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that Mr A Rossel Rodriguez was unfairly dismissed by City & Essex (London) Limited under section 95(1)(c) and section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The public record contains the dispositive judgment only and does not set out the tribunal's oral reasons in detail.
The tribunal awarded a basic award of £1,610.01 and a compensatory award of £438.20, making a total award of £2,048.21. The decision notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within the stated time limit.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found that the respondent unfairly dismissed the claimant under section 95(1)(c) and section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons were not provided in the public judgment. | Upheld | — | £2,048 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,048
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £1,610
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £438
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 95(1)(c) ERA 1996
- section 98(4) ERA 1996
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.