Case 2602917/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs R Bemrose and Mrs B Hassell v TSRC Property Services Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2602917/2020
- Decision date
- 30 July 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Butler
- Venue
- Leicester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs R Bemrose and Mrs B Hassell
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claims arose after both claimants' employment had transferred to TSRC Property Services Ltd under TUPE. The first claimant had continuous service from 22 August 2011 and the second from 27 July 2015. The tribunal accepted their unchallenged evidence, because the respondent did not attend, that on 23 March 2020 the respondent altered their terms and duties, including reducing the first claimant's holiday entitlement and converting her contract to zero hours, and that there was no genuine redundancy process.
Employment Judge Butler found that the conduct of Mr Chopra amounted to dismissal of both claimants and that no potentially fair reason had been given, so the unfair dismissal claims succeeded. The tribunal also found that the claimants were entitled to the outstanding holiday pay they had claimed. The claims for redundancy payment were dismissed.
In compensation, the tribunal said the claimants had made genuine efforts to mitigate their losses and awarded a 25% uplift because the ACAS Code of Conduct in relation to disciplinary hearings had not been followed. The detailed awards recorded in the reasons were, for the first claimant, a basic award of £1,108.68, holiday pay of £172.33, payment in lieu of notice of £400.38, loss of future earnings of £4,404.18, expenses of £100, failure to supply a statement of particulars of employment of £200, loss of statutory employment rights of £350, a total before uplift of £6,735.57 and a grand total of £7,849.11. For the second claimant, the reasons recorded a basic award of £1,044.38, holiday pay of £155.99, payment in lieu of notice of £557, loss of future earnings of £6,127, expenses of £100, failure to supply a statement of particulars of employment of £200, loss of statutory employment rights of £350, a total before uplift of £8,214.37 and a grand total of £9,858.95. The extracted text contains internal arithmetic inconsistencies in the second claimant's compensation table, and the stated totals in the reasons section are reflected here.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found that both claimants were dismissed by the conduct of Mr Chopra and that no potentially fair reason for dismissal was given. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Outstanding holiday pay was awarded to both claimants: £172.33 to the first claimant and £155.99 to the second claimant. | Upheld | — | £328 |
| Breach of contract | The judgment used breach of contract rather than wrongful dismissal; the line items included payment in lieu of notice of £400.38 and £557.00. | Upheld | — | £957 |
| Redundancy | The redundancy payment claims were dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £17,708
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £2,153
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £14,950
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
2 references- ACAS Code of Conduct in relation to disciplinary hearings
- Employment Protection (Recoupment of Job Seekers' Allowance and Income Support) Regulations 1996
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.