Case 2418051/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Y and Z — 2023
- Case reference
- 2418051/2020
- Decision date
- 6 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McDonald
- Venue
- Manchester
- Panel members
- Ms J K Williamson, Mr H Sheard
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal upheld the claimant's unfair dismissal claim against the second respondent only. It calculated a basic award of £2,092.80 using eight years' service, a 1.5 age multiplier and a weekly pay figure of £174.40, then deducted the redundancy payment of £1,116.16 already received, leaving a basic award of £976.64. It also awarded a compensatory award of £9,068.80 net, with a note that the claimant could apply for reconsideration if grossing up was required for tax purposes.
The tribunal also upheld the wrongful dismissal claim against the second respondent. It found the claimant was entitled to eight weeks' notice and ordered £1,395.20 for breach of contract, being gross pay for that notice period.
The claimant succeeded on holiday pay and unlawful deduction claims against the second respondent. The tribunal found holiday pay had been calculated on the basis of 16 hours per week rather than 20 hours per week, that the claimant had accrued 2.33 weeks, and awarded £406.35. It also found a series of unauthorised deductions from wages in the two years before the claim was issued and awarded £4,527.11.
The claimant's disability discrimination claims against the first and second respondents were dismissed. The tribunal rejected the claim under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010 and the claim for failure to make reasonable adjustments under sections 20 and 21 of the Equality Act 2010. The total payable by the second respondent was £16,374.10, and the notice stated that the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Jobseeker's Allowance and Income Support) Regulations 1996 did not apply to the award. The notice also stated that interest would accrue from 7 April 2023 at 8% per annum if unpaid after 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Succeeded against the second respondent only. The tribunal awarded a basic award of £976.64 after deducting the redundancy payment already received, and a compensatory award of £9,068.80 net. | Upheld | — | £10,045 |
| Wrongful dismissal | Succeeded against the second respondent only. The tribunal found the claimant was entitled to eight weeks' notice and awarded gross pay for that period as breach of contract damages. | Upheld | — | £1,395 |
| Holiday pay | Succeeded against the second respondent only. Holiday pay had been calculated on 16 hours per week rather than 20 hours per week, and the claimant had accrued 2.33 weeks. | Upheld | — | £406 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Succeeded against the second respondent only. The tribunal found a series of unauthorised deductions from wages in the two years before the claim was presented. | Upheld | — | £4,527 |
| Disability discrimination | Section 15 Equality Act 2010 claim against the first and second respondents. It was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments claim under sections 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010 against the first and second respondents. It was dismissed. |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £16,374
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £977
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £9,069
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 15 Equality Act 2010
- sections 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010
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.