Case 4107291/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms L Whitefield v Represented by: Mr D Reid - TU Representative JS Main and Sons Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 4107291/2023
- Decision date
- 29 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge S MacLean
- Venue
- Edinburgh
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms L Whitefield
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was employed by the respondent as a sales assistant from 2 July 2018. In 2023 she raised concerns about stock, customer complaints, unpaid PAYE, late wages, missing payslips, lack of communication and the need to cancel holidays because of staff shortages. She sent a grievance on 29 August 2023 and resent it on 13 September 2023. The respondent did not appear at the final hearing or file a response, and the tribunal found that the concerns had initially been ignored and that there was no explanation from the respondent for the position it had taken.
Applying section 95(1)(c) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the implied term of trust and confidence, the tribunal found that the respondent was in fundamental breach of contract. It accepted that the claimant had been left to deal with creditors, customer complaints and staffing issues, that wages were paid late, that wage slips were not provided, and that statutory deductions and PAYE were not being paid timeously. The tribunal found that the claimant resigned in response to that breach and was therefore dismissed. It recorded that there was no evidence of a potentially fair reason for dismissal or any procedure, and held that she had been unfairly dismissed.
For remedy, the tribunal accepted that the claimant was 60 years old at termination, had five years' continuous service and earned £208.40 gross per week. The basic award was calculated at £1,563. The compensatory award was £1,740.02, made up of £1,331.72 for future loss to the date the respondent ceased trading on 24 February 2024, £58.30 for pension loss, and £350 for loss of statutory rights. The total monetary award was £3,303.02. The recoupment regulations did not apply because the claimant had not received benefits. During the hearing she said outstanding wages and holiday pay had been paid, so those claims were withdrawn and dismissed under rule 52.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The claimant resigned in response to the respondent's conduct. The tribunal found a fundamental breach of contract under section 95(1)(c) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and awarded the total monetary award of £3,303.02. | Upheld | — | £3,303 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | At the final hearing the claimant said outstanding wages had been paid and withdrew this claim. It was dismissed under rule 52 of Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Holiday pay | At the final hearing the claimant said holiday pay due on termination had been paid and withdrew this claim. It was dismissed under rule 52 of Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,303
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £1,563
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £1,740
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 95(1)(c) Employment Rights Act 1996
- implied term of trust and confidence
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.