Case 3312003/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Maria Dolores Alonso, claimant’s Mother For the v Mr Malcolm Cameron, Consultant — 2022
- Case reference
- 3312003/2020
- Decision date
- 9 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge French Appearances
- Venue
- Watford via Cloud Video Platform
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Maria Dolores Alonso, claimant’s Mother For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was employed as a nursery cleaner from 23 April 2019 until 30 June 2020. The tribunal allowed the amendment to pursue an unlawful deduction from wages claim, applying the Selkent balancing approach, but it held there was no jurisdiction to hear unfair dismissal because the claimant did not have two years' service and defamation was outside the tribunal's jurisdiction.
On the merits, the tribunal found the claimant was paid hourly at £10 per hour and was contracted to work two hours per day Monday to Friday. It accepted that a second site at Sudbury was added from 14 February 2020 at the same two-hour daily rate. For February 2020 the claimant should have been paid for 62 hours but was paid for 36 hours, creating an underpayment of 26 hours. For March 2020 the tribunal found that the additional Sudbury hours were not paid in that month and that there was no clear agreement to pay the claimant in full for the period after 23 March; instead, she was furloughed from 23 March 2020 when she was told not to attend work.
The tribunal held that the furlough calculation was wrong because the claimant was not a fixed rate employee within paragraph 7.6 of the Treasury Direction made on 15 April 2020 under sections 71 and 76 of the Coronavirus Act 2020. It found the correct reference salary should have been based on an average under paragraph 7.2 across the months worked before furlough, not solely on February 2020 pay. On that basis April, May and June 2020 were also underpaid.
For notice pay, the tribunal preferred the claimant's evidence that the additional Sudbury work had not been ended before termination. It found that at the point of dismissal she was still contracted to work at both sites, amounting to 20 hours per week, so her two weeks' notice should have been paid at full pay rather than furlough-based pay. The respondent's later payment of £35.51 was treated as a partial correction, but the tribunal found the overall total still due was £642.83 gross.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found a series of underpayments from February to June 2020, including underpaid February hours and an incorrect furlough calculation. The judgment did not allocate a separate monetary figure to this claim, instead stating a combined gross total with the notice-pay claim. | Upheld | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal upheld the notice-pay aspect of the wrongful dismissal claim and found the claimant remained contracted to work 20 hours per week at the point of termination. The judgment did not split out a separate award for this claim; it formed part of the overall gross sum. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £643
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
8 references- Selkent Bus Company v Moore 1996 EAT
- Bear Scotland v Fulton [2015] IRLR 15
- Greg May (Carpet Fitters and Contractors) Ltd v Dring [1990] EAT
- s.23 ERA 1996
- s.13 ERA 1996
- s.27 ERA 1996
- s.86 ERA 1996
- Treasury Direction made on 15 April 2020 under s71 and 76 of the Coronavirus Act 2020
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.