Case 2406056/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Shereen Johnson v Bluebird Care Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2406056/2022
- Decision date
- 16 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ficklin REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Shereen Johnson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Ficklin heard the matter at Manchester Employment Tribunal, with the claimant appearing in person and the respondent represented by Mr Brian Hendley. The short judgment records that the tribunal gave oral reasons at the hearing and that the claimant brought claims for unpaid wages and unpaid holiday pay.
The tribunal found the unpaid wages claim well-founded and awarded the claimant £257.57 in unpaid net wages. The unpaid holiday pay claim was found not well-founded and was dismissed. The judgment records a total award of £257.57.
A separate notice under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990 states that the relevant decision day was 16 December 2022, the calculation day was 17 December 2022, and the stipulated rate of interest was 8% per annum. The judgment itself does not set out any interest sum, only the notice explaining when interest would begin to accrue if the award remained unpaid after the relevant decision day.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the claim for unpaid wages well-founded and awarded £257.57 in unpaid net wages. | Upheld | — | £258 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the unpaid holiday pay claim not well-founded and dismissed it. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £258
- across all upheld claims
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.