Case 3205417/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mylene Sofia de Ceita Santiago do Nascimento v SM Sparkling Services Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 3205417/2022
- Decision date
- 17 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anderson Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mylene Sofia de Ceita Santiago do Nascimento
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was employed by the respondent from 30 September 2019 to 25 July 2022 as a human resources manager for 20 hours per week at £9.10 per hour, rising to £9.50 per hour from 1 April 2022. The respondent did not attend or respond, and the tribunal proceeded on the claimant’s uncontested evidence and documents. It found that when the claimant contacted HMRC on 25 July 2022 she learned that she had been removed from the payroll, and that she then ceased making herself available for work. The tribunal held that removal from payroll was a repudiatory breach of contract and an effective dismissal under s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996, with no potentially fair reason shown under s.98 ERA 1996.
The tribunal upheld the claims for unlawful deductions from wages and holiday pay. It found that the claimant had been underpaid from October 2021 to July 2022 and calculated the award by reference to weekly pay of £182 until 31 March 2022 and £190 thereafter, producing £1,834.94. It also found that she had requested annual leave but was told she did not need to take it because she worked from home, and held that she was entitled to payment for untaken holiday on a pro rata basis of the statutory minimum 5.6 weeks per year. The holiday pay award was £2,997.20.
The tribunal upheld the separate breach of contract claim for notice pay, finding that the claimant was entitled to three weeks' notice, but the notice element was not separately awarded because it was included within the unfair dismissal compensatory award. It dismissed the breach of contract claim relating to pension contributions because, although the claimant said she wished to join the pension scheme in January 2020, she continued working without further protest and affirmed the contract on that issue. It also declared under s.8 ERA 1996 that the respondent had failed to provide itemised payslips for the specified months, and refused the 25% ACAS uplift because the grievance was raised after the effective date of termination. The total award was £7,222.14, comprising the unfair dismissal award, unpaid wages and holiday pay.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Removal from payroll on 25 July 2022 was treated as a repudiatory breach and effective dismissal. The award was £380 basic award, £1,710 compensatory award and £300 for loss of statutory rights. | Upheld | — | £2,390 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal limited the award to underpayments from October 2021 to July 2022. It found earlier deductions were not awarded because the contract had been affirmed. | Upheld | — | £1,835 |
| Working time regulations | Holiday pay was calculated on a pro rata basis of the statutory minimum 5.6 weeks per year, after the tribunal found the claimant had been refused annual leave during employment. | Upheld | — | £2,997 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was entitled to three weeks' notice, but the notice element was included within the unfair dismissal compensatory award and not separately split out. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The pension-contributions claim failed because the claimant continued working after requesting pension enrolment in January 2020 and the tribunal found she had affirmed the contract on that issue. | Dismissed |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £7,222
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £380
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £1,710
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
12 references- s.94 ERA 1996
- s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996
- s.98 ERA 1996
- s.8 ERA 1996
- s.13 ERA 1996
- s.23(4A) ERA 1996
- Regulation 13A Working Time Regulations 1998
- Regulation 14 Working Time Regulations 1998
- Regulation 13(9)(a) Working Time Regulations 1998
- Regulation 13(10) Working Time Regulations 1998
- Smith v Pimlico Plumbers Ltd [2022] EWCA Civ 70
- King v Sash Window Workshop 2018 ICR 693
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.