Case 2201510/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Mr A Goldstein and Mr V Sareen — 2021
- Case reference
- 2201510/2021
- Decision date
- 11 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Joffe
- Panel members
- Ms L Venner, Ms C Brayson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the claimant was employed by both respondents. It upheld parts of her protected disclosure detriment claim against the first respondent, including detriments arising from demands that she resign from the second respondent, allegations about her conduct and sickness absence, and late payment of wages, notice pay and holiday pay. The protected disclosure detriment claims against the second respondent were dismissed.
The tribunal also upheld parts of the claimant's health and safety detriment claims against the first respondent under section 44 ERA 1996. It found that the first respondent subjected her to detriments after she refused to return to the workplace, took steps in circumstances of danger, and raised health and safety concerns connected with work.
The claimant was constructively dismissed by the first respondent, and the tribunal found that dismissal to be both ordinarily unfair and automatically unfair under section 100 ERA 1996. The second respondent unfairly dismissed the claimant without a potentially fair reason or procedure, but the tribunal did not find that dismissal to be automatically unfair.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The first respondent subjected the claimant to some detriments because she made protected disclosures, contrary to section 47B ERA 1996. Remaining protected disclosure detriment allegations against the first respondent and all protected disclosure detriment allegations against the second respondent were dismissed. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | Health and safety detriment claims under section 44(1)(c), section 44(1)(d), and section 44(1)(e) ERA 1996 were upheld in part against the first respondent. Other section 44 claims were dismissed. | Upheld | — | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The claimant was constructively dismissed by the first respondent. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The claimant was automatically unfairly dismissed by the first respondent contrary to section 100 ERA 1996, and her ordinary unfair dismissal complaint against the first respondent was also upheld. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The claimant was unfairly dismissed by the second respondent contrary to sections 94 and 98 ERA 1996. The tribunal found the dismissal was not automatically unfair. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- section 47B ERA 1996
- section 44(1)(c) ERA 1996
- section 44(1)(d) ERA 1996
- section 44(1)(e) ERA 1996
- sections 94 and 98 ERA 1996
- section 100 ERA 1996
- section 230 ERA 1996
- Polkey
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.