Case 2413784/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs L M Ladron de Guevara Macera v Zephus Limited (part of the Bureau Van Dijk Group) — 2020
- Case reference
- 2413784/2019
- Decision date
- 26 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Franey
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs L M Ladron de Guevara Macera
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a public preliminary hearing on the respondent's application to strike out claims under rule 37(1)(a). Employment Judge Franey sat alone, heard oral submissions from both parties, and considered documents provided by the respondent and the claimant. The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal claim, the breach of contract claim in relation to notice pay, and the unlawful deductions claim in respect of pay for 1-10 June 2019 because each had no reasonable prospect of success.
On unfair dismissal, the tribunal noted that unfair dismissal rights under Part X of the Employment Rights Act 1996 do not apply unless the employee has two years' continuous employment ending with the effective date of termination, subject to limited exceptions. The claimant had been employed from 7 January 2019 to 10 June 2019, a period of just over five months. When asked what she thought was the real reason for dismissal, she said she did not know, and the judge concluded that none of the exceptions to the two-year qualifying period arose.
On notice pay, the tribunal relied on the written contract dated 14 December 2018, signed by the claimant on 18 December 2018. Clause 12 provided for a two-week notice period during the first six months' probation, and clause 16 allowed payment in lieu of notice. The claimant accepted that she had been paid in lieu of two weeks' notice, but said she should have received four weeks' notice. The judge found that point had no reasonable prospect of success on the plain terms of the contract.
On the deductions claim for 1-10 June 2019, the tribunal accepted that the claimant said she had not been paid for the last ten days of employment and that her payslip was issued on 25 June 2019. The judge found that the payslip showed basic pay of £403.85, derived from the annual salary of £17,500 and a daily rate of £67.3077, and that six working days between 1 and 10 June 2019 came to £403.85. The tribunal therefore concluded there was no reasonable prospect of the claimant proving that she had not been paid for that period. The remaining claims were left to be dealt with in a separate case management order.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out under rule 37(1)(a) because the claimant had less than two years' continuous service and none of the exceptions to the qualifying period applied on the facts found. | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The notice pay claim was struck out because the signed contract provided for two weeks' notice during the probationary period and the claimant had already been paid in lieu of two weeks' notice. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal struck out the claim concerning pay for 1-10 June 2019 because the payslip showed basic pay of £403.85, which matched six working days at the derived daily rate from the annual salary of £17,500. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37(1)(a)
- s.108 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.