Case 4103155/2023 · Employment Tribunal
E.T. Z (WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4103155/2023 (V)5 Held at Aberdeen on October 2023 Employment Judge N M Hosie Ms Amie Thomson v South River Property Ltd st and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 4103155/2023
- Decision date
- 12 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Venue
- Aberdeen
Parties
3 namedClaimant
E.T. Z (WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4103155/2023 (V)5 Held at Aberdeen on October 2023 Employment Judge N M Hosie Ms Amie Thomson
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Portland Hotel Trading Ltd was the claimant's employer after a TUPE transfer on 18 March 2023 and that the claim against South River Property Ltd should be dismissed. The claimant had been employed at the Portland Hotel since 1 March 2019 as Head Waitress, with some reception and office duties, and she retained continuity of employment from that date.
At the 22 March 2023 staff meeting, the tribunal preferred the claimant's evidence that she was told staff would be contacted to discuss roles and contracts, and that she expected to be called in to sign her contract and watch a health and safety video. The tribunal accepted that she did not receive that contact, that she tried to telephone the hotel and visited on 25 April 2023, and that her emails of 28 April and 8 May 2023 showed she intended to continue working. The tribunal rejected the respondent's view that she had no intention of returning.
The tribunal held that the claimant was effectively dismissed on 17 April 2023 when Mr Harling filled her role after she did not report for work that day. Applying s.98(1) to s.98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the guidance in British Home Stores Ltd v Burchell, the tribunal found that although the respondent believed she had not intended to return, it had no reasonable grounds for that belief and carried out no meaningful investigation. It also found no compliance with the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures. The dismissal was therefore unfair.
On wages, Mr Harling accepted that the claimant should have been paid £240 per week for the four-week period from the transfer on 18 March 2023 until dismissal on 17 April 2023. The tribunal awarded £960 for unlawful deductions from wages. For unfair dismissal, it awarded a basic award of £1,200 and a compensatory award of £4,220, made up of £3,720 for 15.5 weeks' lost earnings and £500 for loss of statutory rights, giving a total monetary award of £5,420.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Four weeks' wages at £240 per week were unpaid after the 18 March 2023 TUPE transfer; the respondent accepted the arrears. | Upheld | — | £960 |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was effectively dismissed on 17 April 2023 when Mr Harling filled her role, without a meaningful investigation or disciplinary procedure. The claim against South River Property Ltd was dismissed because Portland Hotel Trading Ltd was found to be the employer. | Upheld | — | £5,420 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,420
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £1,200
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £4,220
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
6 references- s.98(1) ERA 1996
- s.98(2) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- British Home Stores Ltd v Burchell [1978] IRLR 379
- ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures
- band of reasonable responses
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.