Ms. Luna Martin v EE-USK & Piazza Ltd. — 2022

Ms. Luna Martin worked for EE-USK and Piazza Ltd at The Scot from 26 July 2021 until she was summarily dismissed by email on 28 August 2021. The tribunal found that on 27 August 2021 she had sent a WhatsApp message saying that £1,000 was missing from her pay slip and asking for it to be rectified, and that she repeated that complaint in a telephone call with Mrs. MacLeod shortly afterwards. The tribunal held that both the message and the call amounted to a sufficiently clear allegation that her statutory right not to have unauthorised deductions made from wages had been infringed.

The tribunal found that the decision to dismiss was made very shortly after that call by Mr. MacLeod, after he learned from Mrs. MacLeod that Ms. Martin had pressed for payment of her full wages and had said she would have to leave if not paid. It found that the reasons for dismissal were Mrs. MacLeod’s upset, Ms. Martin’s perceived attitude on the call, and Ms. Martin’s insistence on being paid her full wage without deduction or delay. Applying the s.104 ERA 1996 question of the principal reason, the tribunal held that the most important reason was the claimant’s insistence on full payment, rather than any separate concern about Mrs. MacLeod being upset.

On that basis, the tribunal held that the dismissal was unfair under s.104(1)(b) ERA 1996. It also recorded that the claimant had not pursued a separate wages claim, and it accepted the respondent’s evidence that she was later paid a week’s notice, so there was no loss for that short period. The tribunal rejected a basic award because she had worked for less than a year.

For compensation, the tribunal accepted that the relevant loss period ran from 5 September 2021 to 31 March 2022, a period of about 29.5 weeks. It found that Ms. Martin’s weekly loss was £210, based on a minimum of three 7-hour shifts a week at £10 per hour, and awarded £6,195 as compensatory compensation. It accepted that she made reasonable efforts to mitigate her loss, and noted that she did not receive additional state benefits after dismissal.