Mrs J E Witt v New Quay Honey Farm Ltd and Mr S C O Cooper: 1602264/2019
| Judgment Date | 11 February 2021 |
| Subject Matter | Age Discrimination |
| Date | 11 February 2021 |
| Citation | 1602264/2019 |
| Published date | 04 March 2021 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
Case Number: 1602264/2019
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant:
Mrs J E Witt
Respondents:
(1) New Quay Honey Farm Limited
(2) Mr S C O Cooper
Heard at:
Cardiff
On: 11 to 13 January 2021
Before:
Members:
Employment Judge P Davies
Ms A Burge
Mr B Roberts
Representation:
Claimant:
Respondent:
Mr D Brown (counsel)
Mr J Morgan (counsel)
RESERVED JUDGMENT
The unanimous Judgment of the Tribunal is that
1. The Claimant was unfairly dismissed. The First Respondents do pay the
Claimant the sum of £10,223.00 ( being a basic award of £5278.50 :
compensatory award of £4544.50 : and loss of statutory rights £400 )
The Recoupment Regulations do not apply
2. The Claimant was victimised as a result of doing a protected act namely
making an allegation that the Respondents had contravened the Equality
Act 2010.
3. The Claimant was the subject of harassment because of her age.
4. The Claimant was not undertaking “like work” for the purposes of making a
claim for equal pay
5. The First and Second Respondents do pay the Claimant the sum of
£6,000 as compensation for injury to feelings in respect of the
discrimination and harassment together with interest of £ 720
Case Number: 1602264/2019
2
REASONS
1. By a claim received on 11 December 2019 the Claimant, Mrs Janet
Elizabeth Witt, complained of unfair dismissal, discrimination because of
age and discrimination because of sex, notice pay, holiday pay, and
arrears of pay. The Claimant had been employed by the First Respondent,
New Quay Honey Farm Limited, but the claims of
discrimination/victimisation/harassment had also been brought against the
Second Respondent, Mr Samuel Charles Orlando Cooper.
2. The Response dated 20 January 2020 which was filed on behalf of the
First and Second Respondents denied that the Claimant had been unfairly
or constructively dismissed as alleged or at all, and denied that the
Claimant had been subjected to any discrimination, victimisation or
harassment and also denied that the Claimant had been subject to a
breach or breaches of the Equal Pay Provisions of the Equality Act 2010
as alleged or at all.
3. The parties had agreed a list of issues. It was agreed that the Claimant
had continuity of service from 19 April 2002 and that all the claims were in
time. Although the agreed List of Issues included sex discrimination
contrary to Section 13 of the Equality Act 2010 namely, did the
Respondent treated the Claimant less favourably than they treated or
would have treated others on the basis of her sex with the alleged
detriment being paying the Claimant a lower rate than her comparator Mr
Mark Grinszpan, this was not pursued as it was accepted that it related to
pay and could only be a claim made under the Equal Pay provisions of the
Equality Act 2010.
4. The Tribunal heard evidence from the Claimant; Mr S C O Cooper; Mr
Mark Grinszpan, ex-employee of the First Respondents; and Ms Katie
Reynold, ex-employee of the First Respondent.
5. The Tribunals findings of fact are as follows: Prior to the Second
Respondent setting up the limited company of New Quay Honey Farm
Limited (the First Respondent) in 2015, the business of keeping bees
and producing honey, mead and related products at the farm situated in
Llandysul, West Wales, had operated as a honey farm from 1995. At that
time the farm was being run by the Second Respondent’s parents. The
farm had a farm shop, a tea room, and exhibition regarding bees and was
operated on a seasonal basis, although the farm itself operated for the
entire year. The season was from just before Easter and would finish
typically in October.
6. The Claimant commenced employment in the farm shop on 19 April 2002.
It appears that the Claimant was not issued with any Statement of Terms
To continue reading
Request your trial