Case 2303214/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs P Timlin v Synergy (GB) Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2303214/2021
- Decision date
- 14 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Reed Representation
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs P Timlin
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs Timlin brought claims for unfair dismissal, statutory redundancy pay, breach of contract / wrongful dismissal, and unpaid holiday pay under regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998. The tribunal accepted that she had worked for Synergy since 2013, was furloughed in March 2020, returned to the office in August 2020, and was then put back on furlough. It found that the August 2020 conversation and return to furlough did not amount to a dismissal, because in context both parties understood that the employment relationship continued.
On the later events, the tribunal found that stopping furlough payments in April 2021, and the subsequent delay in contacting Mrs Timlin, did not communicate a dismissal. In the June 2021 correspondence, Mr Taylor continued to say that she remained employed and should return to work. The tribunal held that Synergy had not directly dismissed her. It also held that Mrs Timlin resigned in her 15 June 2021 email by making clear that she regarded the employment as ended and would not return, but that the resignation was not a constructive dismissal because there was no repudiatory breach of contract.
The tribunal rejected the suggested breaches relied on for constructive dismissal. It found that the cessation of furlough payments in May 2021 was not, on its findings, a breach because Mrs Timlin was not ready, willing and able to perform the work required and had taken other work. It also found that Mr Taylor's failure to make more active efforts to contact her before June 2021 did not breach the implied term of trust and confidence. For those reasons, the unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, and statutory redundancy pay claims were dismissed.
The holiday pay claim succeeded. The tribunal found that 20 days of 2020 annual leave carried over under regulation 13(10) because of the effects of coronavirus, and that Mrs Timlin was also entitled to a pro-rated payment for 2021 up to the end of employment on 15 June 2021. Using a daily rate of £69.23, it calculated £1,384.60 for the carried-over 2020 leave and £879.22 for 2021 leave, making a total award of £2,263.82.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found no direct dismissal in August 2020, no dismissal when furlough payments ended, and no constructive dismissal. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | The redundancy pay claim depended on a dismissal, which the tribunal did not find. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Plead as breach of contract / wrongful dismissal for lack of notice; the tribunal held that Synergy did not terminate the contract. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Regulation 14 Working Time Regulations 1998 payment for accrued untaken annual leave; the tribunal calculated carried-over 2020 leave and 2021 leave to the end of employment. | Upheld | — | £2,264 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,264
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
10 references- s.95 ERA 1996
- s.136 ERA 1996
- Martin v Glynwed Distribution Ltd
- Southern v Franks Charlesly & Co
- East London NHS Foundation Trust v O’Conner
- Western Excavation (ECC) Ltd v Sharp
- Malik v BCCI
- Baldwin v Brighton and Hove City Council
- regulation 14 Working Time Regulations 1998
- regulation 13(10) Working Time Regulations 1998
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.