Case 2213436/2023 · Employment Tribunal

(1) Ms I Dos Santos Costa (2) Mr H Acosta Piamonte (3) Ms A Ferreira (4) Ms R Gusque (5) Ms S Fonnegra Rivera (6) Ms S Yaguar Salinas v DOC Cleaning Ltd — 2024

Case reference: 2213436/2023
Decision date: 24 October 2024
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Keogh
Venue: Central London
Panel members: Mrs W Ellis, Ms B Osbourne

Indexed: 17 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

(1) Ms I Dos Santos Costa (2) Mr H Acosta Piamonte (3) Ms A Ferreira (4) Ms R Gusque (5) Ms S Fonnegra Rivera (6) Ms S Yaguar Salinas

Respondent

DOC Cleaning Ltd

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The claimants brought claims of trade union detriment under section 146 Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 relating to their membership of CAIWU. The tribunal found a number of allegations proven, including specific comments and treatment by Ms Rodrigues towards individual claimants, her conduct at a union protest, comments about union membership, failures relating to first refusal of available hours, and aspects of the grievance process.

The tribunal found that the claims succeeded in part. Some alleged detriments, including aspects of the grievance appeal and a statement in the appeal outcome about Ms Dos Santos Costa, were found to be detriments but were not proven to have been done by the respondent because of trade union membership or activity. The tribunal concluded that the proven matters formed a series of similar acts or failures and were within its jurisdiction.

No remedy was determined in this judgment. The tribunal listed a separate remedy hearing for 16 January 2025.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Trade union	The judgment states that the claimants' claims of trade union detriment under section 146 Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 succeeded in part. Remedy was reserved for a separate hearing.	Upheld	—	—

Legal tests applied

6 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.