Case 4104442/2022 · Employment Tribunal
E.T. Z (WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 410444/2/20225 Held at Aberdeen on December 2022 Employment Judge J M Hendry Ms W Jamieson v Croft and Cairns — 2022
- Case reference
- 4104442/2022
- Decision date
- 22 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Venue
- Aberdeen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
E.T. Z (WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 410444/2/20225 Held at Aberdeen on December 2022 Employment Judge J M Hendry Ms W Jamieson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Aberdeen on 20 December 2022, Employment Judge J M Hendry heard Ms W Jamieson in person and recorded that Croft and Cairns did not appear. The tribunal allowed the ET1 to be amended so that the respondent was Croft and Cairns Limited trading as Croft and Cairns.
For the reasons given orally at the hearing, the tribunal found the claimant's claims well-founded. It held that the respondent unfairly dismissed the claimant. The written judgment does not set out detailed reasoning, but it records that the unfair dismissal finding was followed by a basic award of £1,282.
The tribunal also awarded £2,565 for accrued but unpaid holiday pay due at the date of termination of employment on 1 May 2022. The total amount ordered by the tribunal was £3,847.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | Awarded as accrued but unpaid holiday pay due at the date of termination on 1 May 2022. | Upheld | — | £2,565 |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal awarded a basic award only in relation to the unfair dismissal. | Upheld | — | £1,282 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,847
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £1,282
- statutory, unfair dismissal
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.