Case 3315988/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms C German v Boots Management Services Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 3315988/2019
- Decision date
- 9 August 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Quill
- Venue
- Watford
- Panel members
- Mr M Bhatti MBE, Ms B Handley-Howorth
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms C German
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that the claim for breach of contract, described as failure to pay in lieu of contractual holiday entitlement on termination, succeeded. The Respondent was ordered to pay £1,767.26 gross, subject to the PAYE treatment described in the judgment.
The tribunal found there was no breach of s8 Employment Rights Act 1996 concerning itemised pay statements. It also found that the Claimant was not dismissed, so she was not entitled to pay in lieu of notice or damages for lack of notice, and was not unfairly dismissed for the automatic reasons relied on or at all.
The tribunal further found that the Claimant was not dismissed within the meaning of section 39(7)(b) Equality Act 2010. The complaints of sex discrimination, race discrimination, harassment and victimisation failed and were dismissed. Allegations 11a to 11o in the list of issues were found to be out of time, with time not extended, so the tribunal held it had no jurisdiction in relation to those complaints.
Claims and outcomes
8 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Failure to pay in lieu of contractual holiday entitlement on termination succeeded. | Upheld | — | £1,767 |
| Other | The tribunal found no breach of the requirements of s8 Employment Rights Act 1996 concerning itemised pay statements. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal found the Claimant was not dismissed and was therefore not entitled to pay in lieu of notice or damages for lack of notice. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the Claimant was not unfairly dismissed for any of the automatic reasons relied on, or at all. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | The complaint of sex discrimination failed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Race discrimination | The complaint of race discrimination failed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | The judgment states that the complaints of harassment failed and were dismissed; the extracted text does not allocate the harassment complaint to a specific protected characteristic. |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,767
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- s8 Employment Rights Act 1996
- sections 100(1)(c), 104E and 104 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 39(7)(b) Equality Act 2010
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.