Case 8000403/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Lesley Eadie v RT Managers Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 8000403/2023
- Decision date
- 8 November 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Wiseman
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Lesley Eadie
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Lesley Eadie started with RT Managers Ltd as a cashier on 1 November 2019 and became a manager in 2021. After discussing her daughter's mental health difficulties, she reduced her hours to 21 per week in April 2023. In early June 2023 Ms Sud said the reduced-hours arrangement was not working, Ms Eadie stepped down from the manager role to return to cashier duties, and after she became unwell at work on 1 June and sent a fit note on 5 June, the respondent emailed on 7 June stating that it had received her verbal resignation of 2 June. Ms Eadie replied on 12 June that she had not resigned and had been dismissed.
The tribunal preferred Ms Eadie's evidence and found that she had not resigned. It held that the respondent dismissed her, and that the dismissal was unfair because no reason was provided and no procedure was followed. The disability discrimination complaint, framed as direct discrimination because of her daughter's disability, was dismissed. Although the tribunal accepted evidence about the daughter's mental health, self-harming and eating disorder, it found that a hypothetical comparator without a disabled dependant would also have been told that a manager could not work 21 hours over 3 days, so there was no less favourable treatment.
The tribunal treated 14 July 2023 as the effective date of termination and calculated six weeks' notice pay at £951, made up of four weeks' statutory sick pay and two weeks' wages. It assessed the unfair dismissal award at £4,018, comprising a basic award of £1,154, lost wages of £2,564 to 22 September 2023 after the respondent's email indicating it had ceased trading, and £300 for loss of statutory employment rights. It also found an unauthorised deduction from wages, quantifying unpaid wages for May to 14 July at £1,630 net but reducing that sum to nil after deducting the outstanding loan balance, and it awarded £769 for 10 accrued untaken holiday days. No recoupment order was made because the tribunal did not have sufficient information about the Universal Credit award.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal accepted that Ms Eadie had not resigned and found that she was dismissed. The unfair dismissal award was split into a basic award of £1,154, a compensatory award of £2,564 for lost wages and £300 for loss of statutory employment rights. | Upheld | — | £4,018 |
| Disability discrimination | The complaint was framed as direct discrimination because of the claimant's daughter's disability. It was dismissed because the tribunal found that a hypothetical comparator would also have been told that a manager could not work 21 hours over 3 days. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Breach of contract | Notice pay was awarded for the six-week notice period from 7 June to 14 July 2023. The tribunal calculated £438 for the first four weeks while the claimant was unfit for work and £513 for the remaining two weeks. | Upheld | — | £951 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found unpaid wages for May, June and 1-14 July 2023 and quantified them at £1,630 net, but that sum was reduced to nil after deducting the outstanding loan balance owed to the respondent. | Upheld | — | £0 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found that 10 days' accrued but untaken holiday remained unpaid and calculated the award at £769. | Upheld | — | £769 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,738
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £1,154
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £4,018
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.