Case 3307696/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Rita Adjei v Virtue Care Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 3307696/2023
- Decision date
- 16 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Graham Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Rita Adjei
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant presented an automatic unfair dismissal claim under s.152 TULR(C)A 1992 and applied for interim relief within seven days of the effective date of termination, 26 June 2023. The tribunal decided the application on the papers and submissions only, without oral evidence or cross-examination. It accepted that the relevant issue was whether it appeared likely that the claimant would succeed at a final hearing in showing that the reason, or one of the reasons, for dismissal was that she had made use of trade union services at an appropriate time, including the union raising matters on her behalf.
The judge found it likely that the claimant was an employee, that she had made use of trade union services at the appropriate time, and that the union had raised matters with the respondent on her behalf. The tribunal reviewed the chronology of the claimant's contacts with the GMB, correspondence in late May and June 2023, and the meeting between the union and Mr Dzade on 20 June 2023. It also considered the respondent's reliance on alleged negligence and unsafe work, including the Quality Alert Form and the later grievance, but concluded on the limited material that it was likely the final tribunal would find the dismissal was not for the reasons advanced by the respondent at the time or at the interim hearing.
The judge considered the timing important: the union meeting took place on 20 June 2023, the Quality Alert Form was sent on 21 June, the claimant raised a grievance on 22 June, annual leave was paid on 23 June, and dismissal followed on 26 June 2023. The tribunal said that even if there were multiple reasons for dismissal, the claim would succeed if union involvement was one of them, because s.152(2B) TULR(C)A 1992 does not require it to be the principal reason. It therefore granted interim relief and ordered continuation of the contract of employment from 26 June 2023 until final determination or settlement.
For the monetary order, the tribunal accepted the claimant's net weekly pay as £536.44 and the monthly shortfall between the old and new employment as £798.40. It ordered payment of £7,073.40 within 28 days, representing pay from termination to the hearing date, and further ordered monthly payments of £798.40 on the last Friday of each month until final determination or settlement, with February 2024 reduced to £399.20 because part of that month had already been covered by the lump sum. The tribunal also noted that the claimant had started new employment in August 2023 and that the respondent did not agree to reinstatement or re-engagement.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | Interim relief application granted under s.161 and s.163 TULR(C)A 1992. The tribunal did not determine final liability, but found it likely that the claimant would succeed at the final hearing on an automatically unfair dismissal claim under s.152 TULR(C)A 1992. | Upheld | — | £7,073 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £7,073
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
7 references- s.152 TULR(C)A 1992
- s.161 TULR(C)A 1992 interim relief
- s.163 TULR(C)A 1992
- Taplin v Shippam Ltd
- Dandpat v The University of Bath
- Ministry of Justice v Sarfraz
- Abernethy v Mott Hay and Anderson
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.