Case 6011662/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs S French v The Granary Team Valley HELD AT: Newcastle Employment Tribunal BY: Cloud Video Platform (CVP) — 2025
- Case reference
- 6011662/2024
- Decision date
- 7 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Martin REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs S French
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mrs S French, had transferred to the respondent, The Granary Team Valley, under TUPE. The Tribunal found that her terms and conditions, including a contractual entitlement to £1 per hour above the National Minimum Wage, transferred to the respondent and that the respondent's failure to pay that rate amounted to a fundamental breach of contract. A claimed bonus payment was held to be discretionary and not a contractual term, so non-payment of the bonus was not a breach.
The Tribunal accepted the claimant's evidence about how she was spoken to and criticised in front of other staff, and found that this, together with the failure to pay tax on her behalf, refusing to pay outstanding holiday entitlement following the transfer, and failing to pay her pension, cumulatively (and potentially separately), with an incident on 8 May 2024 as the final straw, amounted to a breach entitling her to resign and treat the contract as at an end. The claimant had not affirmed the contract and resigned in response to those breaches.
The Tribunal held the dismissal was automatically unfair under the TUPE Regulations and also a constructive unfair dismissal at common law for breach of the express term as to pay and the implied term of trust and confidence. The unfair dismissal complaint was well founded and £18,365.93 was awarded (basic award £12,175.63; compensatory award £6,190.93, with no future loss because the claimant had not made sufficient efforts to seek further work after obtaining new employment on 6 August 2024). The breach of contract / unlawful deduction claim succeeded in the sum of £267.20, and the Working Time Regulations holiday pay claim succeeded in the sum of £192.50. Recoupment applies to part of the compensatory award.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Constructive unfair dismissal; tribunal also held it was automatically unfair under TUPE. Award £18,365.93. | Upheld | — | £18,365 |
| Breach of contract | Combined breach of contract / unlawful deduction from wages award of £267.20 (5 weeks at £1/hour additional pay = £192.50 plus £74.70 pension contributions). Bonus payment claim not upheld as found to be discretionary. | Upheld | — | £267 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Pleaded together with breach of contract; award reported as combined sum of £267.20 (see breach_of_contract entry). | Upheld | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Holiday pay under Working Time Regulations: £192.50 in respect of accrued but untaken holiday at the additional £1/hour rate. | Upheld | — | £192 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £18,825
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £12,175
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £6,190
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
11 references- Section 95(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Regulation 4 Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006
- Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp [1978] IRLR 27
- Industrial Rubber Products v Gillon [1977] IRLR 2389
- Woods v W M Car Services (Peterborough) Ltd [1981] IRLR 347
- Mostyn v S & P Casuals Ltd UKEAT/0158/17
- Kaur v London Metropolitan Hospitals [2018] IRLR 840
- Lewis v Motor World Garages
- Omilaju
- Lewis v Dow Silicones UK Ltd [2024]
- Enterprise Managed Service v Dance UKEAT/0200/11
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.