Case 2406836/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs D Pascubillo v Barker Care Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2406836/2024
- Decision date
- 1 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Butler Representation
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs D Pascubillo
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the Manchester Employment Tribunal, Employment Judge M Butler recorded that Mrs D Pascubillo was not constructively dismissed and that her unfair dismissal claim was dismissed. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and does not set out written reasons in the document itself.
The tribunal upheld two claims for unlawful deduction from wages arising from holiday pay. It awarded £577.83 gross for underpaid holiday pay in March 2024 and £1,155 gross for holiday pay accrued and outstanding on termination.
The total gross award was £1,732.83. The judgment also includes the standard interest notice, stating that the relevant decision day was 31 October 2025, the calculation day was 1 November 2025, and the stipulated rate of interest was 8% per annum if the award remained unpaid after the 14-day period.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The tribunal found that the claimant was not constructively dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Underpaid holiday pay in March 2024 succeeded; the tribunal awarded £577.83 gross. | Upheld | — | £578 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Holiday pay accrued and outstanding on termination succeeded; the tribunal awarded £1,155 gross. | Upheld | — | £1,155 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,733
- 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.