Case 3315187/2022 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2023
- Case reference
- 3315187/2022
- Decision date
- 28 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Warren
- Venue
- Norwich
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss Foreman worked as a counter assistant from 13 January 2014. The tribunal found that, for the first part of the relationship, she was paid cash in hand without tax and national insurance deductions, and that My Plaice Gorleston Limited became her employer from 1 September 2016. It found that the later written contracts contained errors, including wrong employer details and statements that holidays were unpaid. The evidence also showed earlier disciplinary warnings in 2018 and 2020, and in November 2022 she had sickness absence, a return-to-work interview, and a disciplinary hearing on 21 November 2022, after which she received a first written warning and then resigned.
The constructive unfair dismissal claim failed. The tribunal accepted that Mr Bains had on occasions referred to her weight and suggested she should go to the gym, but it found those remarks were not calculated to destroy or seriously damage trust and confidence and were not the reason for resignation. It also found that the Facebook and sister's birthday allegations were matters raised only after resignation and could not have caused it. The tribunal rejected the claimant's evidence that she had been given a final written warning, finding instead that the document issued on 21 November 2022 was a first written warning. It held that managing genuine sickness absence by issuing a warning was not repudiatory conduct, and that the claimant resigned because she believed she could not be warned after producing a fit note.
The related breach-of-contract / notice-pay claim was dismissed, and the claims against Mr Bains were also dismissed because the tribunal found he was not the claimant's employer. The holiday pay claim succeeded only for the period after 1 September 2016. The tribunal applied the illegality doctrine to exclude the earlier cash-in-hand period, finding both parties were equally culpable. It held that, because the claimant had been told she was not entitled to holiday pay, the regulation 13 entitlement under the Working Time Regulations 1998 carried over until termination, but the additional 1.6 weeks under regulation 13A did not. Using a final hourly rate of £9.50, it awarded £227.50 for October 2016 to January 2017 and £4,550 for 2017 to 2022, making a total award of £4,777.50.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | Constructive unfair dismissal claim failed. The tribunal found the claimant resigned after receiving a first written warning for sickness absence, not because of the alleged gym/weight comments. It held the Facebook/sister birthday matters post-dated the resignation and could not have caused it. Claims against Mr Bains were dismissed because the tribunal found she was not employed by him. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Notice-pay / breach-of-contract claim dismissed. The tribunal's final order recorded that the claim against the second respondent for unfair dismissal and breach of contract failed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Holiday pay under the Working Time Regulations succeeded, but only for the period after 1 September 2016. The pre-September 2016 cash-in-hand period was excluded for illegality. The award comprised £227.50 for October 2016 to January 2017 and £4,550 for 2017 to 2022. | Upheld | — | £4,778 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,778
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
8 references- s.94 ERA 1996
- s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996
- Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharpe
- Mahmud & Malik v BCCI
- Kaur v Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust
- Patel v Mirza
- King v The Sash Windows Workshop Ltd
- Pimlico Plumbers Ltd v Smith (No 2)
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.