Case 2414428/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs A E Nicholls v Mandy Tidy — 2020
- Case reference
- 2414428/2019
- Decision date
- 20 October 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ainscough
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs A E Nicholls
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mrs A E Nicholls, had worked for the respondent bakery since 19 October 1987 and was dismissed on 27 September 2019. The tribunal found that she made herself a sandwich during her shift, placed it with her belongings in a cupboard, and was challenged by the respondent over taking product off site. The claimant said this was part of an established lunch arrangement; the respondent said permission was required. The written reasons claim was withdrawn at the hearing, and the redundancy payment claim was not pursued.
On the dismissal dispute, the tribunal preferred the claimant's evidence and accepted that she had taken sandwiches off site on numerous occasions over many years without challenge. It found that the respondent's observation of the sandwich in the cupboard could not have created a genuine belief that the claimant was guilty of misconduct, and it rejected the respondent's case that the claimant had resigned. The tribunal held that the respondent had not proved the reason for dismissal under section 98(1) ERA 1996 and therefore found the dismissal unfair. It made no finding that the real reason was redundancy, because the claimant was not pursuing that case and the evidence was not sufficient to reach that conclusion.
The tribunal also held that the claimant was wrongfully dismissed and entitled to 12 weeks' notice pay under section 86 ERA 1996, with remedy to be decided at a further hearing. It found that the deduction of £99.60 from final wages for excess holiday was unlawful because the claimant had no written contract of employment and had not consented to the deduction. On holiday pay, the tribunal accepted the accountant's evidence that the holiday year ran from 1 April to 31 March and found that by 27 September 2019 the claimant had taken all of her holiday entitlement, so no payment for untaken leave was due. It also held that she was entitled to an award for the respondent's failure to provide written particulars of employment, with the amount again left for the remedy hearing.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the respondent had not proved the reason for dismissal under section 98(1) ERA 1996 and therefore held the dismissal unfair. Remedy was left to a further hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Having found that the claimant was dismissed on 27 September 2019, the tribunal held that she was wrongfully dismissed and entitled to 12 weeks' notice pay under section 86 ERA 1996. Remedy was left to a further hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held that the deduction of £99.60 from the claimant's final pay for excess holiday was unlawful because she had no written contract of employment and had not consented to the deduction. | Upheld | — | £100 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found that by 27 September 2019 the claimant had taken all of her holiday entitlement for the leave year, so no further holiday pay was due on termination. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The tribunal held that the claimant was entitled to an award for the respondent's failure to provide written particulars of employment, but the amount was left to a further remedy hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £100
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
11 references- s.95 ERA 1996
- s.98(1) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- Burchell test
- band of reasonable responses
- Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp
- Malik implied term of trust and confidence
- section 13 ERA 1996
- section 86 ERA 1996
- regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998
- Hertz (UK) Ltd v Ferrao
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.