Case 2405490/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms M Mallinson v Mallinson Fabrications Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2405490/2019
- Decision date
- 9 October 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ross REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms M Mallinson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs M Mallinson brought claims against Mallinson Fabrications Limited for unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, unlawful deduction from wages/National Minimum Wage, maternity pay, and payment in lieu of accrued but untaken holiday. Employment Judge Ross heard the matter on 5, 6 and 7 October 2020 and gave judgment on 8 October 2020.
The tribunal upheld the unfair dismissal claim, but applied the Polkey principle and found it was wholly inevitable that the claimant would have been fairly dismissed within 28 days of 14 January 2019, the effective date of termination. The wrongful dismissal claim also succeeded, with damages assessed by reference to seven weeks' pay based on the weekly amount the claimant was receiving when her employment ended.
The claim that the respondent failed to pay the National Minimum Wage was found not well-founded and failed. The maternity pay claim was dismissed because the claimant was in receipt of maternity pay during the maternity pay period, although she did not then know the nature of the payments.
The holiday pay claim succeeded under section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996 and regulation 14 Working Time Regulations 1998. The tribunal awarded the claimant her statutory entitlement for the holiday year 1 January 2018 to 31 December 2018 and her pro rata entitlement for 1 January 2019 to 14 January 2019, and stated that it was not satisfied the respondent had refused to permit the claimant to exercise a right to statutory leave under regulation 13 or 13A. The written judgment records a single monetary order of £3,718.32 payable within 14 days and does not break that figure down between the successful heads of claim.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claim well-founded and succeeded, but applied Polkey v A E Dayton Services Limited to find it was wholly inevitable that the claimant would have been fairly dismissed within 28 days of 14 January 2019. | Upheld | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal held the claim succeeded and awarded damages equivalent to seven weeks' pay based on the weekly amount the claimant was receiving at termination; the written judgment does not state a separate figure for this head of loss. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim that the respondent failed to pay the National Minimum Wage under section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996 and the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 was found not well-founded and failed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The claim for maternity pay was dismissed because the claimant was in receipt of maternity pay during the maternity pay period, although she was unaware of the nature of the payments at the time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The claim for payment in lieu of accrued but untaken holiday succeeded under section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996 and regulation 14 Working Time Regulations 1998. The tribunal awarded the claimant her statutory entitlement for 1 January 2018 to 31 December 2018 and her pro rata entitlement for 1 January 2019 to 14 January 2019, and said it was not satisfied that the respondent refused to permit statutory leave under regulation 13 or 13A. | Upheld |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,718
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
6 references- Polkey v A E Dayton Services Limited [1987] UKHL 8
- section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- National Minimum Wage Act 1998
- regulation 14 Working Time Regulations 1998
- regulation 13 Working Time Regulations 1998
- regulation 13A 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.