Case 3200588/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss R. Grant v Jack Bell (trading as “The Cock Pub and Kitchen”) — 2020
- Case reference
- 3200588/2020
- Decision date
- 14 July 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge A. Ross
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss R. Grant
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss R. Grant was employed by Jack Bell, trading as The Cock Pub and Kitchen, as manager from 4 November 2019 until her resignation on 17 December 2019. The hearing was conducted by telephone. The Respondent did not file an ET3, did not attend the hearing, and sent no documents or correspondence to the Tribunal. The Tribunal accepted the Claimant's evidence as honest and reliable.
On wages, the Tribunal found that after the first month the Claimant should have been paid a gross salary of £2,500 but was paid £2,000 on or about 5 December 2019, creating an unlawful deduction of £500 gross. It also found that the Respondent failed to pay her for the 12 days worked between 5 and 17 December 2019; on the agreed salary basis, that deduction was assessed at £986.30 gross. The unlawful deduction from wages claim therefore succeeded for £1,486.30 gross in total.
On the notice-pay claim, the Tribunal found a breach of the express term as to payment of salary and, alternatively, a breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence. It held that the Claimant was entitled to resign and that, for the purpose of notice pay, she had been constructively dismissed. The parties had agreed a two-week notice period during probation, and the Tribunal awarded £977.07 for notice pay.
The Tribunal also found a breach of section 1(1) Employment Rights Act 1996 because the Respondent did not give the Claimant a written statement of terms. The WhatsApp photograph of terms was held not to satisfy the statutory duty because it did not state the employer's name, the start date, or the place of work. Applying section 38 Employment Act 2002, the Tribunal considered it just and equitable to award the higher amount of four weeks' pay, but capped the award at the statutory maximum weekly pay then in force, so the section 38 award was £2,100. The total award was £4,563.37.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The Tribunal found two unlawful deductions: £500 gross on or about 5 December 2019 and £986.30 gross on or about 5 January 2020, totalling £1,486.30 gross. | Upheld | — | £1,486 |
| Breach of contract | The Tribunal found a fundamental breach of the express salary term and, alternatively, a breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence. It held that the Claimant was entitled to resign and, for notice-pay purposes, was constructively dismissed; the notice-pay award was £977.07. | Upheld | — | £977 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,563
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.13 ERA 1996
- constructive dismissal
- s.1(1) ERA 1996
- s.38 Employment Act 2002
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.