Case 2600293/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Gemmell v Reflex Labels Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2600293/2021
- Decision date
- 3 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ahmed
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Gemmell
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Ahmed, sitting alone at Leicester on 29 and 30 November 2021, found that Mr C Gemmell was unfairly dismissed by Reflex Labels Ltd. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and therefore are not set out in the short written judgment.
The tribunal ordered compensation for unfair dismissal of £8,493.67 net. The schedule records a basic award of £1,614, calculated on the basis that the claimant was 44 years old at the effective date of termination, had 2 years' service, and that the weekly cap of £538 applied.
The compensatory award was £6,879.67. That figure comprised loss of earnings of £9,891 less a net payment in lieu of £1,734.34 and earnings from other employment of £2,275.01, giving net loss of earnings of £5,881.65, plus £460.02 for loss of pension contributions and £538 for loss of statutory rights. The Employment Protection (Recoupment of Jobseeker's Allowance and Income Support) Regulations applied; the prescribed element was £5,881.65 for the period 23 December 2020 to 5 July 2021, and the amount by which the monetary award exceeded the prescribed element was £2,612.02.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed and awarded total compensation of £8,493.67 net. | Upheld | — | £8,494 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £8,494
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £1,614
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £6,880
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.