Case 2403662/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs J Herling v S&M Herling Limited and 1 other — 2024
- Case reference
- 2403662/2023
- Decision date
- 31 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Batten
- Panel members
- A Ramsden, T D Wilson
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mrs J Herling
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal, sitting at Manchester before Employment Judge Batten with members A Ramsden and T D Wilson, unanimously upheld the claimant's complaints of unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, unauthorised deductions from wages, breach of the duty to provide a written statement of employment particulars, and victimisation. The first respondent was ordered to pay compensation for unfair dismissal of £5,281.16 (a basic award of £4,023.16 and a compensatory award of £1,258.00), damages of £2,099.04 for lack of notice, and £874.60 in respect of unauthorised deductions.
Under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002, the Tribunal awarded a further £349.84 (two weeks' gross pay) for the failure to provide a written statement of particulars. The victimisation complaint succeeded and the Tribunal awarded £1,072.30 for injury to feelings, including £72.30 of interest calculated under the Employment Tribunals (Interest on Awards in Discrimination Cases) Regulations 1996, with the respondents jointly and severally liable for that award.
The complaint about unpaid holiday entitlement was found not to be well-founded and was dismissed. The complaint about a failure to pay the national minimum wage was also dismissed, the Tribunal having found that the claimant's employment fell within the exception in Regulation 58 of the National Minimum Wage Regulations 2015. Written reasons were given orally at the hearing and were not provided in the document supplied.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Comprising a basic award of £4,023.16 and a compensatory award of £1,258.00, payable by the first respondent. | Upheld | — | £5,281 |
| Wrongful dismissal | Damages for lack of notice, payable by the first respondent. | Upheld | — | £2,099 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deductions from pay, gross sum, payable by the first respondent. | Upheld | — | £875 |
| Holiday pay | Complaint about unpaid holiday entitlement not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | National minimum wage complaint dismissed; Tribunal found the claimant's employment fell within the Regulation 58 exception of the National Minimum Wage Regulations 2015. No matching enum for NMW, classified as 'other'. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Breach of duty to provide a written statement of employment particulars; award of 2 weeks' gross pay under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002. | Upheld | — | £350 |
| Victimisation | Injury to feelings award of £1,072.30 including interest of £72.30 under the Employment Tribunals (Interest on Awards in Discrimination Cases) Regulations 1996. Respondents jointly and severally liable. Underlying protected act inferred to relate to the sex discrimination claim referenced in the gov.uk listing categories; protected characteristic not explicitly stated in the judgment text provided. |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £9,677
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £4,023
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £1,258
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 38 of the Employment Act 2002
- Regulation 58 of the National Minimum Wage Regulations 2015
- Employment Tribunals (Interest on Awards in Discrimination Cases) Regulations 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.