Case 2407617/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Ruth Kissock v Bread Basket Sandwich Station — 2023
- Case reference
- 2407617/2021
- Decision date
- 28 November 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ficklin REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Ruth Kissock
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Kissock was employed as a delivery driver from 9 December 2020 to 20 May 2021. The tribunal found that she was not self-employed: she worked regular shifts under the respondent's supervision, could not choose whether to accept work, was paid in cash, and never received a written contract. It accepted her evidence that she was dismissed on 20 May 2021 after she pressed the respondent about a £630 tax rebate she believed was being withheld. The respondent did not give evidence, and the tribunal found that no disciplinary procedure or investigation had been carried out at the time of dismissal.
The tribunal held that the unfair dismissal claim succeeded under s.104 ERA 1996 because the dismissal was principally because the claimant had asserted a statutory right in relation to what she believed were withheld wages. It found that her belief was made in good faith, even though she later learned that the rebate had not yet been received, and that the qualifying period in s.108 ERA 1996 did not apply. The wrongful dismissal claim also succeeded: the claimant was entitled to one week's notice, no gross misconduct was proved, and notice pay of £348.80 was awarded. The tribunal also upheld the unpaid wages claim for £510.12 and the holiday pay claim for £872.00. The separate £630 tax refund element was not proceeded with and was dismissed on withdrawal after payment was received on 3 March 2022.
On remedy, the tribunal awarded £0 for both the basic award and compensatory award on the unfair dismissal claim because the claimant started a new higher-paid job on 24 May 2021 and had no compensable loss. It found no power to award damages for health. The subtotal of £1,730.92 was increased by 10% because the respondent unreasonably failed to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures, producing £1,904.01, and a further £697.60 was awarded under s.38(3) of the Employment Act 2002 because the respondent had not provided written particulars. The total award was £2,601.61 gross.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found that Ms Kissock was dismissed on 20 May 2021 because she had asserted a statutory right in relation to what she believed were withheld wages or a tax rebate. It held that s.104 ERA 1996 applied, so the two-year qualifying period did not bar the claim. | Upheld | — | £0 |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal found that the claimant was entitled to one week's notice and that there was no gross misconduct justifying summary dismissal. Notice pay of £348.80 was awarded. | Upheld | — | £349 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal accepted the claimant's evidence that gross unpaid wages of £510.12 were outstanding. | Upheld | — | £510 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found that the claimant had accrued untaken holiday during her employment from 9 December 2020 and awarded £872.00. | Upheld | — | £872 |
| Other | The separate claim for a £630 tax refund was not proceeded with and was dismissed on withdrawal after the claimant received payment on 3 March 2022. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,602
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £0
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £0
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
5 references- s.104 ERA 1996
- s.108 ERA 1996
- s.38(3) Employment Act 2002
- Working Time Regulations 1998 regs 13, 13A and 14
- s.13 ERA 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.