Case 3201234/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss C Ndiweni v Christ Embassy — 2020
- Case reference
- 3201234/2019
- Decision date
- 15 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Burgher Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss C Ndiweni
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss C Ndiweni was employed by Christ Embassy as an administrative assistant from 1 August 2016 and also served as a pastor. The tribunal found that, after discussions with Pastor Adesina in September and October 2018, she was permitted to work three days a week so that she could attend university on Tuesdays and Thursdays. It found that she started working part-time from November 2018, but that the respondent did not communicate that arrangement to Deaconess Kilsy.
The tribunal held that the respondent dismissed the claimant by word and deed. It relied on the email of 23 January 2019, which placed her on unpaid leave from 1 February 2019, and on the later P45 showing an end date of 31 January 2019. Applying the approach in Sandle v Adecco, Kelly v Riveroak Associates Ltd and Hogg v Dover College, the tribunal concluded that the email terminated the part-time arrangement and that an objective observer would understand that the claimant's employment had been brought to an end. The wrongful dismissal claim therefore succeeded because the claimant was entitled to four weeks' notice and had only been paid to 31 January 2019, leaving three weeks' pay outstanding.
The unfair dismissal claim also succeeded. The respondent argued that there was some other substantial reason because the claimant wanted to work part-time and the organisation could not accommodate it, but the tribunal did not accept that case. It found that the claimant had already been working part-time with approval, that the respondent failed to engage with her objections or requests for a meeting, and that it did not properly consider alternatives such as swapping days or allowing weekend work. The tribunal said that, even if a potentially fair reason had been shown, the dismissal would not have been fair and reasonable in all the circumstances under section 98(4) ERA 1996.
On remedy, the tribunal awarded £462.18 for wrongful dismissal. For unfair dismissal it awarded a basic award of £462.46 and a compensatory award of £1,892.76, comprising £1,505.26 for loss of earnings, £37.50 for pension loss and £350 for loss of statutory rights. It rejected the respondent's argument that the claimant had contributed to her dismissal and then applied a 25% uplift of £704.35 for the complete failure to engage with her or offer an appeal, producing a total award of £3,521.75.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Basic award of £462.46 and compensatory award of £1,892.76 were awarded for this claim before the tribunal applied a 25% uplift to the combined successful claims. The tribunal rejected contributory conduct and found no fair reason or fair process. | Upheld | — | £2,355 |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was entitled to 4 weeks' notice, credited one week already paid, and awarded the balance as notice pay. | Upheld | — | £462 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,522
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £462
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £1,893
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
7 references- s.95 ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- objective observer test
- Sandle v Adecco UKEAT/0028/16
- Kelly v Riveroak Associates Ltd UKEAT/0290/05
- Hogg v Dover College [1990] ICR 39
- ACAS Code of Practice on dismissals and grievances
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.