Case 4105678/2023 · Employment Tribunal

ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4105678/2023 Hearing Held at Glasgow on and August 2024, and Members’ Meeting on Employment Judge: M A Macleod Tribunal Member: L Govan Tribunal Member: J Haria Ms M Ginter v Represented by Ms D Janusz Legal Consultant Bridge of Weir Care Home Limited — 2024

Case reference: 4105678/2023
Decision date: 4 November 2024
Jurisdiction: Scotland
Judge: Employment Judge Bradley
Venue: Glasgow
Panel members: L Govan, J Haria

Indexed: 22 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4105678/2023 Hearing Held at Glasgow on and August 2024, and Members’ Meeting on Employment Judge: M A Macleod Tribunal Member: L Govan Tribunal Member: J Haria Ms M Ginter

Respondent

Represented by Ms D Janusz Legal Consultant Bridge of Weir Care Home Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The claimant started work for the respondent on 1 May 2022 and went on maternity leave after the birth of her baby on 10 December 2022. The tribunal preferred her evidence about a telephone call with the new manager, Helen Maloy, and found that she did not say she would not return to work. It found instead that she said she would be in touch nearer the end of maternity leave, while also seeking payslips and a P60 for mortgage purposes.

The tribunal held that the respondent failed to provide the claimant with payslips and a P60, and failed to keep in touch with her during maternity leave. It concluded that those failures, taken together, destroyed trust and confidence and amounted to a repudiatory breach. Applying the authorities it cited on constructive dismissal, the tribunal found that the claimant was constructively dismissed. It also found that the respondent failed in the protected period under s.18 Equality Act 2010 to give details of the new manager, to contact the claimant about her return to work, and to pay maternity pay correctly, and that this treatment was unfavourable because of maternity leave.

On remedy, the tribunal awarded £1,343.72 for loss of earnings, £7,500 for injury to feelings, £338 for the maternity pay underpayment, and £1,240.32 for failure to provide payslips. It rejected the larger injury-to-feelings figure claimed because there was no medical evidence supporting it, and assessed the award within the lower Vento band. The total award ordered was £10,422.04.

The tribunal noted that the claimant did not have sufficient service for an ordinary unfair dismissal claim, so the dismissal issue was dealt with as constructive dismissal and as part of the maternity discrimination claim.

Claims and outcomes

4 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Constructive dismissal	The tribunal found that repeated failure to provide payslips and a P60, together with failure to keep in touch with the claimant during maternity leave, amounted to a repudiatory breach of contract. It accepted the claimant resigned when she could not realistically return to work. The loss of earnings figure was awarded as part of the remedy, although the judgment did not separately apportion it between the dismissal and discrimination findings.	Upheld	—	£1,344
Pregnancy and maternity discrimination	Under s.18 Equality Act 2010 the tribunal found that failing to give details of the new manager, failing to contact the claimant about her return to work, and underpaying maternity pay were unfavourable treatment in the protected period because of maternity leave. Injury to feelings was awarded at £7,500, assessed in the middle of the lowest Vento band.	Upheld	Pregnancy and maternity	£7,500
Unlawful deduction from wages	For September 2023 the claimant was due £682 and was paid £344. The tribunal found an unlawful deduction of £338 under s.13 ERA 1996.	Upheld	—	£338
Other	The tribunal found a failure to give the claimant itemised pay statements/payslips for the period May to October 2023 under s.8 ERA 1996, with the claim pursued under s.11 ERA 1996. It awarded £1,240.32, described as four weeks' pay, for that failure.	Upheld	—	£1,240

Remedy

Monetary award

Total award: £10,422; across all upheld claims
Compensatory award: £1,344; compensatory remedy recorded

Legal tests applied

13 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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.