Case 2602331/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Charlton v John Pye and Sons Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2602331/2021
- Decision date
- 5 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge K Welch
- Venue
- Nottingham
- Panel members
- Mr A Saddique, Mr C Pittman
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Charlton
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal sat at Nottingham on 3, 4 and 5 July 2023 before Employment Judge K Welch with Mr A Saddique and Mr C Pittman. The claimant was represented in person and the respondent was represented by a litigation consultant. The tribunal's unanimous decision was that all three claims failed.
The judgment records that the claimant's claim for constructive automatic unfair dismissal for having made protected disclosures was dismissed. It also records that the claim for detriment for having made protected disclosures was dismissed. No written reasons are included in the extract because the tribunal gave reasons orally at the hearing and stated that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
The claimant's unpaid wages claim, brought in respect of the period 27 July 2021 to 6 August 2021, was also dismissed. The extract does not set out the tribunal's factual findings or legal reasoning beyond the outcome, so the decision recorded here is limited to the claims identified and their dismissal.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Constructive automatic unfair dismissal for having made protected disclosures. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Detriment for having made protected disclosures. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unpaid wages claim for the period 27 July 2021 to 6 August 2021. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.