Case 2300838/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Giuseppe Tomaselli (lay representative) For the v Mr John Brotherton (consultant) Respondent — 2023
- Case reference
- 2300838/2020
- Decision date
- 20 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tueje BETWEEN
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Giuseppe Tomaselli (lay representative) For the
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Ms Bolotina's employment with Friendship Society Limited began on 14 December 2018, not 1 February 2019, and that the parties had agreed an annual salary of £31,200. It held that the later written contract was not a mutual variation of the earlier oral agreement, because Ms Bolotina did not accept the new terms. The tribunal also granted an extension of time for the January 2019 unlawful deduction claim, finding that Ms Bolotina had reasonably relied on Ms Clark's WhatsApp message about repayment of sponsorship-related fees.
On wages, the tribunal found that £1,337 was unlawfully deducted from Ms Bolotina's January 2019 pay, made up of £149 for the certificate of sponsorship, £1,092 for the immigration skills charge and £96 for the national insurance number application fee. It also found that, because the proper monthly wage was £2,600, Ms Bolotina was underpaid in most months from December 2018 to November 2019, with March 2019 above the monthly figure and August 2019 unknown on the evidence. The tribunal rejected the Respondent's case that the later written contract varied the earlier terms.
On dismissal, the tribunal rejected the Respondent's account that Ms Bolotina was dismissed for misconduct, including the allegations about complaints, overstretching gymnasts, and encouraging gymnasts to leave the club. It found that the reason or principal reason for dismissal on 1 December 2019 was that she had requested a corrected written contract and payslips, so the dismissal was automatically unfair under section 104 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal also held that she was entitled to one week's statutory notice under section 86(1)(a), so the breach of contract claim for notice pay was well-founded; the holiday pay issue and the amount of notice pay were left for the remedies hearing listed for 22 November 2023. The tribunal said it had no jurisdiction to award damages for injury to feelings based on use of her image in publicity material.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the reason or principal reason for dismissal was that Ms Bolotina asserted her statutory rights under section 1 and section 8 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, so the dismissal was automatically unfair under section 104. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal held that Ms Bolotina was entitled to one week's statutory notice under section 86(1)(a) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and that she was summarily dismissed without notice or pay in lieu. The amount of notice pay was left to the remedies hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that Ms Bolotina was employed from 14 December 2018 on an annual salary of £31,200, that she was underpaid for most months from December 2018 to November 2019, and that £1,337 was unlawfully deducted from her January 2019 wages. It granted an extension of time for the January 2019 deduction claim and left quantum to the remedies hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- section 1 ERA 1996
- section 8 ERA 1996
- section 13 ERA 1996
- section 86(1)(a) ERA 1996
- section 104 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.