Case 3334840/2018 · Employment Tribunal

In person For the v Mr A Williams (Solicitor Advocate) — 2020

Case reference: 3334840/2018
Decision date: 25 September 2020
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Hawksworth Members
Venue: Reading
Panel members: Mrs C Baggs, Mrs J Beard

Indexed: 21 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

In person For the

Respondent

Mr A Williams (Solicitor Advocate)

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

Miss C Hatton worked in sales for James Woollard Polyethene UK Limited from August 2009 and moved to part-time hours after maternity leave. In August 2018 the respondent began investigating her after learning that she was also working for Windrush Flooring. She was suspended on 15 August 2018 and dismissed on 31 August 2018 for alleged gross breach of trust and working elsewhere without permission; the appeal was heard by Mr Woollard.

On unfair dismissal, the tribunal held that the real reason for dismissal was a conduct dismissal rather than some other substantial reason. Although the respondent genuinely believed that the claimant had worked elsewhere without permission, the dismissal was unfair because the reasons for action shifted during the process, the alleged misrepresentation on 15 August 2018 was not properly investigated, new matters were introduced at appeal, and the respondent treated other employees with outside work more leniently. The tribunal also noted that the handbook permission requirement had not been specifically drawn to the claimant's attention and that this was a first offence after long service.

Under the Part-Time Workers Regulations, the tribunal found that the £400 monthly addition to the sales target and the dismissal were less favourable treatment on the ground of part-time status. The target adjustment was objectively justified, but the dismissal was not. The direct sex discrimination allegations failed for lack of evidence, and the remote-access complaint failed because the tribunal found remote access had been removed from all employees for security reasons; the tribunal also recorded that the 2016 remote-access allegation was out of time.

The victimisation complaint failed. The tribunal found that the telephone call to the claimant's new employer on 8 November 2018 could not have been because of the tribunal claim because the respondent did not yet know of it, and that the letter sent on 16 January 2019 was prompted by a client report rather than by the protected act. The tribunal awarded a basic award of £4,318 and a compensatory award of £7,813.95, made up of post-dismissal earnings loss, pension loss and £500 for loss of statutory rights. It made no award for losses after 31 May 2019, no award for the maternity bonus, no injury to feelings award, and no Acas uplift.

Claims and outcomes

4 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed for conduct, not for some other substantial reason, and held the dismissal unfair because the respondent's investigation and decision were not within the range of reasonable responses. The tribunal found shifting reasons during the process, an inadequate investigation into the events of 15 August 2018, reliance at appeal on matters not properly put to the claimant, inconsistency with the treatment of other employees who had outside work, and the absence of specific attention to the handbook permission requirement.	Upheld	—	£12,132
Part-time worker regulations	The tribunal upheld this complaint only in part: it found the £400 monthly target addition and the dismissal were less favourable treatment on the ground of part-time status, but the target addition was objectively justified and the other alleged detriments failed. No separate monetary award was made because the financial loss was not doubled across the claims, and the regulations do not permit injury to feelings.	Upheld	—	—
Sex discrimination	The allegations that males were given more praise or more customer leads failed for lack of evidence. The complaint about remote access also failed because the tribunal found remote access was removed from all employees for security reasons; it also noted that the 2016 remote-access allegation was presented out of time.	Dismissed	Sex	—
Victimisation	The alleged detriments were a telephone call on 8 November 2018 to the claimant's new employer and a letter on 16 January 2019. The tribunal found the protected act did not play any part in either decision: the first call pre-dated the respondent's knowledge of the tribunal claim, and the January 2019 letter was prompted by a client report rather than the claim.

Remedy

Monetary award

Total award: £12,132; across all upheld claims
Basic award: £4,318; statutory, unfair dismissal
Compensatory award: £7,814; compensatory remedy recorded

Legal tests applied

18 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.