Case 3314512/2019 · Employment Tribunal

Ms Claire Marcel, Trade Union Representative For the v Miss L Broom, Senior HR Advisor — 2020

Case reference: 3314512/2019
Decision date: 13 February 2020
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Bloch QC
Venue: Watford

Indexed: 22 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Ms Claire Marcel, Trade Union Representative For the

Respondent

Miss L Broom, Senior HR Advisor

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The claimant had been employed since 28 November 2013. The tribunal found that after additional hours were added in 2015/2016 she worked under a single 45-hour contract, with 24 hours at David Lloyd Fulham and 21 hours at David Lloyd Chelsea Harbour. After she complained in October and November 2018 about bullying by supervisors and managers, David Lloyd requested on 1 December 2018 that she be removed from the Fulham site. The respondent treated this as a third-party removal request, placed her on paid leave, met with her, asked the client to reconsider, circulated a large vacancy list, and held an appeal.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	The tribunal upheld unfair dismissal and awarded a total of £10,759.61. It did not need to determine the alternative unlawful deduction of wages issue, although it said that if it had been wrong on dismissal it would have upheld that claim for £10,005.66.	Upheld	—	£10,760

Remedy

Monetary award

Total award: £10,760; across all upheld claims
Basic award: £2,643; statutory, unfair dismissal
Compensatory award: £8,117; compensatory remedy recorded

Legal tests applied

9 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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 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.