Case 4104388/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms C Radu v Fernglen Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 4104388/2023
- Decision date
- 31 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Robison
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms C Radu
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge M Robison heard the case at Glasgow. The claimant, Ms C Radu, appeared in person and the respondent submitted no response. The tribunal issued judgment orally with reasons and held that the claimant was unfairly dismissed on 31 July 2023.
The tribunal also found that the respondent failed to provide the claimant with written particulars of employment. It ordered payment of £5,664.30 in compensation for unfair dismissal and £1,088 for the failure to provide written particulars.
The recoupment note stated that the Employment Tribunals (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996 applied. It identified a prescribed element of £4,722.30, described as loss of wages from 1 August 2023 to 1 December 2023, and recorded that the total monetary award of £6,752.30 exceeded that prescribed element by £2,029.93.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the claimant was unfairly dismissed on 31 July 2023 and awarded compensation of £5,664.30. | Upheld | — | £5,664 |
| Other | The tribunal also found that the respondent failed to provide written particulars of employment and awarded £1,088. | Upheld | — | £1,088 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,752
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £5,664
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.