Case 2402121/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Dataatungaa McDonald v ISS Facility Services Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2402121/2023
- Decision date
- 8 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge G Tobin Representation
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Dataatungaa McDonald
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that the hearing was conducted remotely by video with the parties' consent. The claimant represented herself and the respondent was represented by counsel.
The tribunal held that the claimant was constructively unfairly dismissed pursuant to section 95(1)(c) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It also held that the claimant was wrongfully dismissed, described in the judgment as dismissed in breach of contract.
The parties agreed compensation at £11,630.41. The written judgment does not provide a breakdown of that sum between claims, and notes that reasons were given orally unless written reasons were requested.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The tribunal stated the claimant was constructively unfairly dismissed pursuant to section 95(1)(c) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The agreed compensation was not split by claim. | Upheld | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal stated the claimant was wrongfully dismissed, described as dismissed in breach of contract. The agreed compensation was not split by claim. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £11,630
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 95(1)(c) of the Employment Rights Act 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.