Case 2206966/2021 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2021
- Case reference
- 2206966/2021
- Decision date
- 1 August 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Representation For
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss E. Najafloo worked for Charlotte Tilbury Beauty Ltd as a Retail Artist from 23 July 2017, and from July 2018 worked at the respondent's counter within Selfridges, Oxford Street. The judgment records that her pregnancy and maternity discrimination claim had already been dismissed at an open preliminary hearing on 23 March 2022 because it was out of time. The final hearing therefore concerned unfair dismissal and unlawful deduction from wages in respect of holiday pay.
On holiday pay, the tribunal found that the claimant's contract authorised deduction from final pay for holiday taken in excess of entitlement. It found that she had reduced her hours, was on maternity and parental leave, and took 12 days of annual leave in April 2021. By the end of employment on 26 August 2021, she had taken 32 hours more annual leave than she had accrued. The respondent's deduction of £400 from final pay represented 32 hours at £12.50 per hour, so the deduction was held to be lawful and the unlawful deduction claim failed.
On unfair dismissal, the tribunal found that the claimant was aware of the allegation that she had provided items to her mother without taking payment and that the respondent investigated the incident of 1 August 2021 before holding a disciplinary hearing over two days. It accepted the respondent's evidence that it genuinely believed the claimant was aware of her mother's theft and had given her mother an empty Selfridges bag by placing it in the buggy, contrary to policy, and that this amounted to gross misconduct involving theft or dishonesty and breach of trust and confidence.
The tribunal also found that the procedure was fair overall. The claimant was given the opportunity to attend investigation and disciplinary meetings, to view CCTV, to be accompanied, and to appeal. The appeal officer considered her personal circumstances and the live first written warning relating to misuse of the employee discount policy, but upheld the dismissal. Applying section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the Burchell approach, the tribunal held that summary dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses and dismissed the unfair dismissal claim.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | Dismissed at an open preliminary hearing on 23 March 2022 as out of time. | Dismissed | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Concerned the £400 deduction from the claimant's final pay for excess holiday; the tribunal found the deduction was contractually authorised and lawful. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the respondent had a genuine and reasonable belief that the claimant was involved in her mother's theft from Selfridges and had provided an empty Selfridges bag, and that dismissal without notice was within the range of reasonable responses. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
13 references- s.98(1) ERA 1996
- s.98(2) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- Burchell test
- range of reasonable responses
- Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd
- Wincanton Group plc v Stone
- Taylor v OCS Group Limited
- West Midlands Cooperative Society Ltd v Tipton
- Mining Supplies (Longwall) Ltd v Baker
- Robertson v Magnet Ltd (Retail Division)
- s.13(1) ERA 1996
- s.23 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.