Case 4102176/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms P Ritchie v Represented by: Ms D Flanigan - Solicitor South West Community Cycles — 2020
- Case reference
- 4102176/2020
- Decision date
- 23 November 2020
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge J Young
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms P Ritchie
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs P Ritchie worked as a cycle coach for South West Community Cycles from 1 September 2017 until she resigned on 7 January 2020. After she raised concerns on 14 October 2018 under the respondent's whistleblowing procedure, she was suspended on contractual pay on 30 October 2018. The tribunal found that her pay then became erratic: her monthly pay was reduced in late 2018 and early 2019, no wages were paid from 21 February 2019 until a payment of £1,416.61 in August 2019, and there was no further payment before she resigned.
The claimant lodged a grievance on 5 September 2019 about the suspension, lack of investigation and non-payment of wages. A grievance hearing took place on 29 October 2019, but no outcome was notified before her resignation, despite later correspondence in December 2019. Applying section 95(1)(c) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the authorities on constructive dismissal and trust and confidence, the tribunal held that the respondent's failure to pay wages due during suspension and failure to deal adequately with the grievance amounted to a fundamental breach of contract, so the constructive unfair dismissal claim succeeded.
The tribunal also upheld the unlawful deduction from wages claim under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It calculated an underpayment of £127.83 from 30 October 2018 to 21 February 2019, and a further deduction of £9,850.49 for 21 February 2019 to 7 January 2020 after crediting the August 2019 payment of £1,416.61, producing a total award of £9,978.32. For unfair dismissal, the reasons calculate a basic award of £828 and a compensatory award of £7,205.53, with the claimant starting new employment on 20 July 2020; the reasons therefore total £8,033.53, although the opening order states £8,205.53.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The judgment's opening order states a monetary award of £8,205.53, but the remedy reasons at paragraphs 57-58 calculate £8,033.53 in total (£828 basic award plus £7,205.53 compensatory award). The prescribed element is £7,205.53 and the recoupment excess is £828. | Upheld | — | £8,034 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Paragraph 52 refers once to a payment on 22 August 2020, but the chronology and findings indicate the payment was made on 22 August 2019. The award is calculated as £127.83 plus £9,850.49, giving £9,978.32. | Upheld | — | £9,978 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £8,034
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £828
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £7,206
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
9 references- s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996
- s.98 ERA 1996
- s.13 ERA 1996
- Western Excavating Ltd v Sharpe
- Malik v Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA
- Bournemouth Higher Education Corporation v Buckland
- W A Goold (Pearmak) Ltd v McConnell
- North West Anglia NHS Foundation Trust v Greg
- Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996
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.