Case 2203953/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Openreach Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2203953/2019
- Decision date
- 28 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Victoria Butler
- Venue
- Nottingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal recorded that the Claimant's claim that he was unfairly dismissed was well-founded and succeeded. The Respondent was ordered to pay a basic award of £6,825 and a compensatory award of £5,373.51.
The Tribunal also recorded that, by consent, the Respondent would pay the Claimant £114.54 for 5.96 hours of holiday pay outstanding on termination of employment. The Claimant's claim for a redundancy payment was found not well-founded and failed.
Reasons were given orally at the hearing. The written record does not set out the Tribunal's detailed reasoning or factual findings beyond the outcomes and awards.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states the unfair dismissal claim was well-founded and succeeds, and orders a basic award of £6,825 and compensatory award of £5,373.51. | Upheld | — | £12,199 |
| Holiday pay | The judgment records that, by consent, the Respondent will pay £114.54 for 5.96 hours' holiday pay outstanding on termination. | Settled | — | £115 |
| Redundancy | The judgment states the redundancy payment claim was not well-founded and fails. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £12,313
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £6,825
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £5,374
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.