Case 3310912/2022 · Employment Tribunal
A Bucur (lay representative) For the v A Williams (solicitor, Peninsula) — 2025
- Case reference
- 3310912/2022
- Decision date
- 4 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge W Anderson
- Venue
- Reading
- Panel members
- Mr B Osborne, Mr D Sagar
Parties
2 namedA Bucur (lay representative) For the
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant, employed by the Respondent (a sandwich production company) as a line leader from 21 June 2008 until her resignation effective 27 May 2022, brought multiple claims. The hearing took place at Reading over five days in March-April 2025 with deliberation in May 2025 before Employment Judge W Anderson sitting with Mr B Osborne and Mr D Sagar.
The Tribunal upheld the claim of constructive unfair dismissal, finding the Respondent had breached the implied term of trust and confidence and the Claimant had resigned in response. The Tribunal also upheld claims of direct age discrimination, harassment on the grounds of age, and victimisation (the Respondent having conceded that the Claimant had done a protected act on 6 May 2022). The claims of unauthorised deductions from wages, breach of the Working Time Regulations 1998, and breach of contract were upheld in part. The breach of contract claim succeeded in respect of refused annual leave during 2009-2020 and accrued holiday on termination, but failed in respect of contractual grievance/bullying procedures and bank holiday pay-in-lieu.
No award was made under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 because the written statement of particulars had been provided before proceedings commenced. Remedy was reserved to a separate hearing listed for 28 July 2025; the available judgment text does not record final monetary figures. The PDF text was truncated.
Claims and outcomes
7 claims adjudicated| Claim type | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | Upheld | — | — |
| Age discrimination | Upheld | Age | — |
| Harassment | Upheld | Age | — |
| Victimisation | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Upheld | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
8 referencesSource document
Primary recordThe full judgment is available 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.