Case 2301423/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss. P Rodrigues First v D Brice and Company Ltd T/A D B Services Second Respondent: Busy Bee Cleaning Services Ltd T/A BBCS — 2023
- Case reference
- 2301423/2022
- Decision date
- 6 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge D Wright
- Venue
- London South
- Panel members
- Ms. A Williams, Mr. J Turley
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss. P Rodrigues First
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal refused both parties' applications to strike out the responses or the claim for failure to comply with case management orders. It also recorded that, after the first respondent withdrew its allegation that the claimant had not transferred to it under TUPE from the second respondent, the claim against the second respondent was dismissed with the consent of all parties.
On the merits, the tribunal found that the claimant had not been discriminated against on grounds of race and dismissed that claim. It also found that the respondent did not dismiss the claimant, either directly or constructively, so the unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal claims were dismissed. The tribunal further found that the claimant resigned from her position by way of her conduct, and on that basis the notice pay claim was dismissed.
The tribunal held that the claim for unpaid holiday from 2018 was out of time and dismissed that element. It found, however, that the claimant was owed 5 days of holiday from 2021 that had accrued but remained unpaid, and ordered the respondent to pay £224 gross of tax for that unpaid holiday pay.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) | The first respondent withdrew its allegation that the claimant did not transfer under TUPE from the second respondent. The claim against the second respondent was then dismissed with the consent of all parties. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The tribunal found that the claimant was not discriminated against on grounds of race and dismissed the claim as not well founded. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found that the respondent did not dismiss the claimant, either directly or constructively. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal found that the respondent did not dismiss the claimant, either directly or constructively, so the wrongful dismissal claim was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The claimant's notice pay claim was dismissed after the tribunal found that she resigned from her position by way of her conduct. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal held that the claim for unpaid holiday from 2018 was out of time and dismissed that part, but found that the claimant was owed 5 days' holiday from 2021 that had accrued but remained unpaid. It ordered payment of £224 gross of tax. |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £224
- across all upheld claims
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.