Case 4123515/2018 · Employment Tribunal
(sitting alone) Aleksandra Kalinowska v Represented by: Ms E Drysdale, Trainee Solicitor Blue Morpho Body and Mind Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 4123515/2018
- Decision date
- 12 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Sutherland
- Venue
- Edinburgh
Parties
2 namedClaimant
(sitting alone) Aleksandra Kalinowska
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAleksandra Kalinowska was employed by Blue Morpho Body and Mind Ltd as a physiotherapist from 23 March 2016 to 13 September 2018. She worked 25 hours a week at £9.50 gross per hour, received guaranteed overtime and commission, and the tribunal found that she had not been issued with a written statement of employment particulars. The respondent ended her employment on 13 September 2018 because she refused to work weekends, and the tribunal recorded that no investigation or meeting took place before the dismissal.
On the unfair dismissal complaint, the tribunal held that the absence of any investigation or hearing meant the dismissal was unfair. It applied the ERA 1996 unfair dismissal framework, including section 98(4), and took the ACAS Code of Practice into account. The claimant was found to have mitigated her losses until the end of January 2019, with her own business earnings for October 2018 to January 2019 totalling £1,621.86.
The tribunal assessed a basic award of £685.24 and a compensatory award of £5,580.59 before uplift. It then found that the respondent had wholly and unreasonably failed to comply with the ACAS Code and increased the compensatory award by 25% to £6,975.73. The prescribed element of the unfair dismissal award was £6,975.73 for the period from 14 September 2018 to 31 January 2019, and the monetary award was £7,660.97.
The tribunal also upheld the unlawful deduction from wages claim, finding that £74.95 had been deducted from the claimant's final wages for changing the locks after her departure and that there was no contractual term authorising the deduction. Separately, because the claimant had more than two years' service and had not been given a statement of employment particulars, the tribunal made an award of £1,370.49, described as the higher award of four weeks' pay under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the claimant was dismissed because she refused to work weekends, that no investigation or hearing was held, and that the absence of procedure made the dismissal unfair. It found a basic award of £685.24 and a compensatory award of £5,580.59 before a 25% ACAS uplift to £6,975.73; the prescribed element was £6,975.73 and the monetary award was £7,660.97. | Upheld | — | £7,661 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that £74.95 had been deducted from the claimant's final wages for changing the locks after her departure, and that no contractual term authorised the deduction. The award was stated as £74.95, with tax and national insurance to be deducted. | Upheld | — | £75 |
| Other | This was the complaint that the claimant had not been provided with a written statement of employment particulars. Applying section 38 of the Employment Act 2002, the tribunal awarded the higher sum of £1,370.49, equal to four weeks' pay. | Upheld | — | £1,370 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £9,106
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £685
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £6,976
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
11 references- s.94 ERA 1996
- s.98 ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- Burchell test
- ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures
- s.123(1) ERA 1996
- s.207 TULRCA 1992
- s.207A TULRCA 1992
- s.13 ERA 1996
- s.27(1) ERA 1996
- s.38 Employment Act 2002
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.