Case 3313620/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms K Wiatrak v Polskie Delikatesy Koziolek Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 3313620/2022
- Decision date
- 24 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hawksworth
- Venue
- Reading
- Panel members
- Mr D Sutton, Mr D Wharton
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms K Wiatrak
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal sat at Reading on 3, 4 and 5 February 2025 before Employment Judge Hawksworth, sitting with Mr D Sutton and Mr D Wharton, and reached a unanimous decision. It held that Ms K Wiatrak had been unfairly dismissed. The complaints of direct disability discrimination and unpaid holiday were dismissed.
The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the sending of the written record. The tribunal ordered the respondent, Polskie Delikatesy Koziolek Limited, to pay £5,390.87. That sum was broken down as a basic award of £1,144.38, loss of salary of £3,192.60, loss of statutory rights of £500.00 and an Acas uplift of £553.89.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the unfair dismissal complaint succeeded and awarded £5,390.87 in total. | Upheld | — | £5,391 |
| Disability discrimination | The complaint of direct disability discrimination failed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Holiday pay | The complaint for unpaid holiday failed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,391
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £1,144
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £4,246
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.