Case 3328253/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Newall (In Person) For the v Respondent — 2022
- Case reference
- 3328253/2019
- Decision date
- 16 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cowen
- Panel members
- Mr D Wharton, Mr D Sutton
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr Newall (In Person) For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr S Newall, a cabin crew employee and Unite representative, succeeded in his claim for payment for union duties under s.169 TULRCA. The tribunal found that the parties agreed on 8 August 2019 that going forward he and others would be paid basic pay and EHR for trade union duties, but that backpay remained unresolved. Applying the claimant's schedule, it limited the award to the period from 8 August 2019 to 1 October 2019 and calculated 28 days at £26.56, producing £743.68.
The dismissal claim also succeeded. The tribunal found that the claimant sent the 10 September 2019 email to the CCAG group of Unite representatives as part of his trade union responsibilities, not as an individual employee, and that the VRA's confidentiality clause covered Unite representatives. It accepted that there was no malicious intent or bad faith and held that the dismissal was automatically unfair under s.152(1)(b) TULRCA. In the alternative, it held that although the respondent had a genuine belief in misconduct, it lacked reasonable grounds because it failed to consider the VRA and the claimant's union authority, and the dismissal was not within the band of reasonable responses.
On remedy for unfair dismissal, the tribunal reduced both the basic award and the compensatory award by 20% for contributory conduct because the claimant could have clarified who he intended to send the email to or sought explicit permission if uncertain. It made no Polkey deduction and no ACAS uplift. The tribunal calculated a basic award of £1,723.32 and a compensatory award of £6,869.29, plus £789.22 pension loss, £50 job search expenses and £500 loss of statutory rights, before applying the 20% deduction. The unfair dismissal award was £7,945.47.
The holiday pay claim succeeded too. The tribunal accepted that the claimant had 5.61 days of holiday outstanding on termination on 18 November 2019. It found that the first 28 days of holiday had to be paid at the full rate, including EHR, and rejected the respondent's argument that the calculation could not be worked out. The award for holiday pay was £149.55.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | Claim under s.169 TULRCA for remuneration for trade union duties. Tribunal limited recovery to 8 August 2019 to 1 October 2019 and applied the claimant's schedule at 28 days x £26.56. | Upheld | — | £744 |
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal under s.152(1)(b) TULRCA. Tribunal also found the dismissal unfair under s.98 ERA 1996. It applied a 20% reduction for contributory conduct, made no Polkey deduction and no ACAS uplift. | Upheld | — | £7,945 |
| Holiday pay | Successful claim for outstanding holiday pay on termination. Tribunal found 5.61 days were owed and that the first 28 days had to be paid at full rate, including EHR. | Upheld | — | £150 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £8,839
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £1,379
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £6,567
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
9 references- s.169 TULRCA
- s.152(1)(b) TULRCA
- BHS v Burchell [1978] ICR 303
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- band of reasonable responses
- Polkey v AE Dayton Services [1987] UKHL 8
- s.123(6) ERA 1996
- Taylor v OCS Group Limited [2006] IRLR 613
- Bear Scotland Ltd v Fulton and anor
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.