Case 2203884/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Ralston, Representative For the v Respondent — 2019
- Case reference
- 2203884/2019
- Decision date
- 25 July 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T Russell
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr M Ralston, Representative For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant sought the difference between her contractual sick pay and statutory sick pay for four days of sickness absence from 22 to 25 July 2019. The tribunal found that she had not fully followed the respondent's reporting procedure for the absence.
On that basis, the respondent declined to pay anything above SSP. The tribunal held that the respondent was entitled to do so under clause 7.3 of the claimant's employment contract, which gave it an unfettered discretion whether to pay the extra sick pay. The claim for an unauthorised deduction from wages and/or breach of contract therefore failed and was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment says the claim was for an unauthorised deduction from wages and/or breach of contract, arising from the difference between contractual pay and SSP for 4 days of sickness absence (22-25 July 2019). It does not separately set out a distinct standalone breach of contract determination. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.