Case 4100204/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs D MacArthur v Leithland Neighbourhood Centre — 2023
- Case reference
- 4100204/2023
- Decision date
- 31 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge S MacLean
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs D MacArthur
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs D MacArthur appeared in person and the respondent did not attend or present a response. The Employment Tribunal, sitting in Glasgow before Employment Judge S MacLean, gave oral reasons at the hearing.
The tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to consider the claimant's complaints of non-payment of holiday pay and notice pay. Those complaints were therefore not determined on their merits.
The tribunal did, however, uphold the redundancy payment claim and ordered Leithland Neighbourhood Centre to pay £2,959.61. The judgment records that this sum represented 13.5 weeks' pay at £219.23 per week.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to consider the complaint of non-payment of holiday pay. | Other | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to consider the complaint of non-payment of notice pay. | Other | — | — |
| Redundancy | The respondent was ordered to pay £2,959.61 as a redundancy payment, calculated as 13.5 weeks' pay at £219.23 per week. | Upheld | — | £2,960 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,960
- across all upheld claims
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.