Case 2403654/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms T Jenkinson v Samuel Smith Old Brewery (Tadcaster) — 2022
- Case reference
- 2403654/2022
- Decision date
- 18 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mark Butler
- Venue
- Manchester
- Panel members
- Mr B Rowen, Dr H Vahramian
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms T Jenkinson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought complaints of unfair dismissal and failure to provide written reasons for dismissal. The central issue was whether she had been dismissed with an effective date of termination of 18 February 2022. The tribunal found that the respondent had demoted her from pub manager back to bar staff after deciding the promotion had been unsuccessful, and that she had been required to leave the accommodation tied to the manager role.
The tribunal found there was no unambiguous statement of dismissal. It relied in part on the claimant's own later communications, including an email describing the situation as a demotion and asking for written confirmation of the change in employment status for Universal Credit and housing benefit purposes. It also noted later correspondence in which the respondent said she had reverted to bar staff and the claimant provided her address without disputing an ongoing contractual relationship.
Because the claimant had not established that she had been dismissed on or around 18 February 2022, the unfair dismissal complaint and the complaint about failure to provide written reasons for dismissal under s.92 Employment Rights Act 1996 were not well-founded and were dismissed. The tribunal stated that all claims were unsuccessful.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the tribunal found the claimant had not been dismissed on or around 18 February 2022; her contract continued, albeit in a different role. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Failure to provide written reasons for dismissal under s.92 Employment Rights Act 1996. Dismissed because the tribunal found there had been no dismissal. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.95 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.92 Employment Rights Act 1996
- objective test for whether dismissal has taken place
- East Sussex County Council v Walker 1972 7 ITR 280
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.