Case 3314182/2021 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Mr J Munro, senior litigation consultant — 2023
- Case reference
- 3314182/2021
- Decision date
- 22 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge George
- Venue
- Reading
- Panel members
- Dr C Whitehouse, Ms C Anderson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting at Reading over 6 to 8 November 2023, found that Miss Rees, a general assistant employed at the respondent's butchers shop from 12 October 2020 to 31 March 2021, was automatically unfairly dismissed contrary to s.103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 because the reason or principal reason for her dismissal was the making of protected disclosures, in particular at a meeting with Mr Hine and Mr Cripps junior on 23 February 2021 concerning Covid-19 prevention measures and related health and safety and employee welfare matters.
Parallel claims of unlawful detriment under s.47B (protected disclosures) and of detriment and automatic unfair dismissal on health and safety grounds under s.44 and s.100 ERA 1996 were not well founded and were dismissed. The tribunal accepted that the claimant became unfit to work following the 23 February 2021 meeting and that the letter of 1 March 2021 from Mr Hine, although not entirely clearly worded, operated to terminate employment with effect from 31 March 2021, a date consistent with the P45 and with the respondent's pleaded case.
On the wages claims, the tribunal held that 14 days' accrued annual leave was payable on termination and ordered the respondent to pay it. The remainder of the unauthorised deductions claim failed: the overtime element had been withdrawn, and the claimant had not shown a contractual entitlement to a bonus greater than the £150 she had received in January 2021, the bonus scheme being discretionary and the decision on her bonus figure having been taken before the protected disclosures were made. Compensation flowing from the successful s.103A claim was reserved to a remedy hearing listed for 9 February 2024.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal contrary to s.103A ERA 1996 (dismissal for making a protected disclosure). Compensation to be assessed at a separate remedy hearing listed for 9 February 2024. | Upheld | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Claims of unlawful detriment contrary to s.47B ERA 1996 were not well founded and were dismissed. (The related s.103A automatic unfair dismissal claim succeeded — see separate entry.) | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Claims of unlawful detriment and automatic unfair dismissal on health & safety grounds contrary to s.44 and s.100 ERA 1996 were not well founded and were dismissed. Classified as 'other' because the §4.4 taxonomy has no dedicated health & safety detriment category. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay 14 days' accrued and untaken holiday pay on termination. Monetary value not quantified in this liability judgment; to be calculated at the remedy hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Save for the 14 days' holiday pay component (recorded as the holiday_pay claim), the unauthorised deductions from wages claim failed. The overtime element was withdrawn, and the tribunal found the claimant was not contractually entitled to a bonus beyond the £150 already paid. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.103A Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.47B Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.44 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.100 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.