Case 3202521/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms B Adaszczyk v Carerose Cares Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 3202521/2019
- Decision date
- 7 September 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McLaren Members
- Panel members
- Miss S Harwood, Mr B Wakefield
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms B Adaszczyk
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the East London Hearing Centre, heard by Cloud Video Platform on 3 and 4 September 2020, the tribunal sat before Employment Judge McLaren with members Miss S Harwood and Mr B Wakefield. The judgment records a unanimous decision.
On the holiday pay issue, the tribunal found that the claimant would be entitled to £529.25 holiday pay for the period prior to her maternity leave. It then recorded that she had already been paid £734.04, so no additional monies were owing. For that reason, the holiday pay claim did not succeed.
The tribunal also recorded that the discrimination claim did not succeed. The extracted text does not set out the nature of that discrimination allegation or any further reasoning, so the summary is limited to the outcome stated in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the claimant would be entitled to £529.25 holiday pay for the period before her maternity leave, but she had already been paid £734.04, so no additional monies were owing and the claim did not succeed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The extracted judgment text states only that the discrimination claim did not succeed. It does not identify the protected characteristic or give further reasoning in the extracted text. | 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.