Case 2417564/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss H Branson v S. W. Barradell Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2417564/2020
- Decision date
- 5 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Franey
- Venue
- Manchester
- Panel members
- Mrs A Eyre, Mr S Hussain
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss H Branson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal unanimously dismissed the complaints of unfair dismissal, detriment contrary to regulation 19(1) of the Maternity and Parental Leave etc Regulations 1999, and indirect sex discrimination contrary to section 19 Equality Act 2010. The judgment records that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
The complaint in respect of holiday pay succeeded. The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the claimant £67.31, described as one day's pay under regulation 30(1)(b) Working Time Regulations 1998. The related complaints of breach of contract and unauthorised deductions from pay in relation to the same matter also succeeded, but no separate award was made for those complaints.
The tribunal further found well founded the complaint of detriment in employment under section 45A(1) Employment Rights Act 1996, said to arise because the claimant refused to forego a right under the Working Time Regulations 1998. The remedy for that claim was not determined at this hearing and was listed for a further remedy hearing, with directions for a revised schedule of loss and dates to avoid.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Complaint of detriment contrary to regulation 19(1) of the Maternity and Parental Leave etc Regulations 1999. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | Indirect sex discrimination claim under section 19 Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Holiday pay | Succeeded in respect of one day's pay under regulation 30(1)(b) Working Time Regulations 1998. The related complaints of breach of contract and unauthorised deductions from pay in relation to the same matter also succeeded, but no separate award was made for those complaints. | Upheld | — | £67 |
| Breach of contract | Succeeded in relation to the same holiday pay matter, but no separate award was made. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Succeeded in relation to the same holiday pay matter, but no separate award was made. | Upheld | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Complaint of detriment in employment under section 45A(1) Employment Rights Act 1996, based on the claimant's refusal to forego a right under the Working Time Regulations 1998. Remedy was left to a further hearing. |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £67
- 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.