Case 3302280/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Reese v Westgrove Support Services Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 3302280/2020
- Decision date
- 19 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Moore Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Reese
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr M Reese worked for Westgrove Support Services Limited at The Lexicon in Bracknell, first as a temporary cleaner from 10 September 2018 and then as a full-time employee from 1 April 2019. The tribunal found that, after his request for holiday on 18 and 19 October 2019 was refused, he was told clearly that he did not have permission to take those days off and could face disciplinary action if he did not attend work. He then wrote on 7 October 2019 about the redundancy process and health and safety concerns, but the tribunal held that this letter did not amount to a protected disclosure under s.43B ERA 1996.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Automatic unfair dismissal claim under s.103A ERA 1996. The tribunal found the 7 October 2019 letter was not a protected disclosure and, in any event, was not the reason or principal reason for dismissal. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Unpaid notice pay claim allowed. The judgment states the claimant was owed one day's notice pay, assessed as £85 gross / £70.83 net. | Upheld | — | £85 |
| Other | Claim for compensation under s.38 Employment Act 2002 for failure to provide employment particulars. The tribunal found the particulars were not sent until September 2019 and awarded 2 weeks' pay. | Upheld | — | £425 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £510
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.43B ERA 1996
- s.103A 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.