Case 4104266/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Northwood Central UK Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 4104266/2020
- Decision date
- 22 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge C McManus
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Laura Bell transferred by TUPE on 11 November 2019 from The Key Place to Northwood Central Limited as a property letting agent. The tribunal found that the respondent's systems and procedures were significantly different from those used previously, that the claimant did not receive the shadowing and structured training she expected, and that the transferred staff were known by management to be unhappy about the training they were receiving.
The tribunal accepted that the claimant raised concerns about training and about the respondent's response when she had to leave work to collect her sick child, and that the two one-to-one meetings in December 2019 and January 2020 left her upset. It also accepted that on 1 February 2020 she learned that Anne Johnstone had told colleagues that she was off with work-related stress. Applying the Western Excavating, Malik, Kaur and Chindove approach, the tribunal held that the respondent's conduct, taken cumulatively, was likely to destroy or seriously damage trust and confidence and that the disclosure of medical information was the last straw.
The tribunal found that the claimant resigned by email on 5 March 2020 because of that breach and did not affirm the contract by waiting until then, taking account of her health, financial position and continued absence from work. The constructive dismissal claim therefore succeeded and the tribunal awarded a basic award of £1,223.28 and a compensatory award of £7,067.84, capped at the statutory maximum. It accepted the claimant's loss evidence, made no deduction for contributory fault, and did not apply a Polkey reduction; the total award was £8,291.12.
The only remaining unlawful deduction complaint was a deduction said to relate to Christmas Day 2019 holiday pay. That claim was dismissed because the tribunal was not satisfied that the deduction had been proved on the evidence about accrued holiday entitlement and because it accepted the respondent's position that the claimant had used her annual leave by the time of transfer.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The tribunal held that the respondent's cumulative conduct, with disclosure of the claimant's work-related stress as the last straw, amounted to a repudiatory breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. The claimant resigned on 5 March 2020 in response. The award comprised a basic award of £1,223.28 and a compensatory award of £7,067.84, totalling £8,291.12. | Upheld | — | £8,291 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | By the close of evidence, the only remaining deduction allegation was a holiday-pay deduction said to relate to Christmas Day 2019. The tribunal was not satisfied that an unlawful deduction was proved, because the holiday entitlement position was not conclusive and the claimant had used up her annual leave by the transfer date. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £8,291
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £1,223
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £7,068
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
7 references- Western Excavating v Sharp
- Malik v BCCI
- Kaur v Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust
- Waltham Forest v Omilaju
- Chindove v William Morrisons Supermarket plc
- s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996
- s.123 ERA 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.