Case 2305540/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G. Guerrero v Holiday Estates Limited t/a New Cross Inn Hostel — 2022
- Case reference
- 2305540/2019
- Decision date
- 24 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge A. Beale
- Venue
- London South
- Panel members
- Mr B. Dixon, Mrs F. Whiting
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G. Guerrero
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was employed by the respondent from 17 February 2019 to 30 September 2019. The tribunal found that he was unfairly dismissed for asserting a statutory right, contrary to s.104 Employment Rights Act 1996. His separate unfair dismissal claim under s.103A ERA 1996, based on protected disclosure, failed, and his detriment claim under s.47B ERA 1996 also failed. The race discrimination and sexual orientation discrimination claims under ss.13 and 39 Equality Act 2010 were dismissed.
The tribunal found that harassment related to sexual orientation succeeded, and harassment related to race succeeded in part. It awarded £5,000 for injury to feelings for the harassment findings, applied a 20% ACAS uplift of £1,000 to that sum, and awarded interest on £6,000 from 10 July 2019 to the date of judgment, totalling £1,262.47. The tribunal also recorded a further 20% uplift on the remaining awards, totalling £1,530.72.
The claim for unauthorised deductions from wages succeeded because the claimant was not paid the national minimum wage for hours worked and was not paid accrued but untaken holiday pay, producing awards of £4,431.90 and £622.38. Wrongful dismissal also succeeded, but no separate award was made because it was encompassed within the unfair dismissal compensatory award. The tribunal further found a breach of s.1(1) ERA 1996 for failure to provide written initial employment particulars and awarded four weeks' pay of £1,191.52. The total gross sum ordered was £16,446.77.
Claims and outcomes
10 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Unfair dismissal under s.104 Employment Rights Act 1996 for asserting a statutory right; no basic award was made because the claimant had insufficient service. | Upheld | — | £1,408 |
| Unfair dismissal | Separate unfair dismissal claim under s.103A Employment Rights Act 1996 based on protected disclosure failed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Detriment claim for making a protected disclosure under s.47B Employment Rights Act 1996 failed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Race discrimination claim under s.13 and s.39 Equality Act 2010 failed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Sexual orientation discrimination | Sexual orientation discrimination claim under s.13 and s.39 Equality Act 2010 failed. | Dismissed | Sexual orientation | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to sexual orientation succeeded; the monetary award was made jointly with the race harassment finding and was not split per claim. |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £16,447
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £1,408
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
7 references- s.104 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.103A Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.47B Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.39 Equality Act 2010
- s.1(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- ACAS Codes of Practice
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.