Case 3322309/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In Person v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 3322309/2019
- Decision date
- 18 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Kurrein JUDGMENT
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In Person
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss C Wilson started work for Atlas Cleaning Limited in January 2018 and signed a statement of main terms on 30 January 2018. Paragraph 11 stated that if conduct, behaviour or general work capability caused concern the company would use its disciplinary or capability procedures, and that any suspension while disciplinary matters were investigated would be without pay.
After a disagreement with a colleague on 10 May 2019, the claimant was suspended the same day. The suspension was confirmed in writing on 14 May 2019 and again on 24 May 2019, with the second letter confirming that it was without pay. An investigation meeting took place on 28 May 2019. The judge said there was ample evidence that the claimant could potentially have been found guilty of gross misconduct and that a disciplinary hearing would ordinarily have followed.
The tribunal found that the claimant did not receive notice of dismissal at the time and did not know about it until she received the respondent's response form in about November 2019, so the effective date of termination was treated as around 15 November 2019. The claim was nevertheless dismissed because the contract expressly allowed unpaid disciplinary suspension, so the tribunal held that it could not award compensation for the period of suspension.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment referred only to 'the claim' and did not break out separate heads of claim. This classification reflects the unpaid-suspension pay dispute described in the reasons. The claim was dismissed because the signed terms expressly allowed disciplinary suspension without pay. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.