Case 2600457/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs M Gonciarska v Holland & Barrett Retail Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2600457/2022
- Decision date
- 14 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge K Welch
- Venue
- Nottingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs M Gonciarska
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the open preliminary hearing on 12 December 2022 before Employment Judge K Welch sitting alone, the tribunal recorded that Mrs M Gonciarska’s claim for a redundancy payment was dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant. The written record was issued on 14 December 2022 and notes that reasons had been given orally at the hearing, so no written reasons would be provided unless requested.
The tribunal allowed the claimant’s application to amend her claim in part. The amendment permitted the claimant to pursue, in addition to existing claims for automatic unfair dismissal, unfair dismissal and holiday pay, allegations of pregnancy and maternity discrimination and a complaint under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 for failure to provide a statement of employment particulars. The discrimination allegations were identified as blocked access to management meetings from 29 May 2020 until dismissal, blocked access to emails and payslips during maternity leave including on 16 August 2021, failure to implement a pay increase between 1 October 2020 and dismissal, and failure to respond to a grievance dated 3 November 2021.
The respondent’s application for a deposit order was refused. No merits findings were made on the amended claims in this judgment, and no monetary award was recorded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The tribunal recorded that the redundancy payment claim was dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
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.