Case 6000926/2023 · Employment Tribunal

Mrs T Rozier v Southampton City Council — 2024

Case reference: 6000926/2023
Decision date: 13 May 2024
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Halliday REPRESENTATION

Indexed: 22 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mrs T Rozier

Respondent

Southampton City Council

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The Tribunal upheld the complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages, finding that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction of two days, amounting to 15 hours' pay. It also upheld the unfair dismissal complaint.

On remedy, the Tribunal found that the claimant had caused or contributed to the dismissal by blameworthy conduct, so it was just and equitable to reduce both the compensatory award and the basic award by 30%.

The Tribunal also upheld the complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability. The remaining complaints of disability discrimination were dismissed.

Claims and outcomes

4 findings recorded

This case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unlawful deduction from wages	The Tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages in respect of two days, or 15 hours' pay.	Upheld	—	—
Unfair dismissal	The Tribunal found that the claimant was unfairly dismissed.	Upheld	—	—
Disability discrimination	The Tribunal upheld the complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability.	Upheld	Disability	—
Disability discrimination	The remaining complaints of disability discrimination were dismissed.	Dismissed	Disability	—

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.

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.