Ms K Kozak v Baltyk International Ltd: 1806746/2020
| Judgment Date | 30 August 2021 |
| Citation | 1806746/2020 |
| Date | 30 August 2021 |
| Published date | 07 September 2021 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Breach of Contract |
Case No: 1806746/2020
10.5 Reserved judgment with reasons – rule 62 March 2017
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: Ms K Kozak
Respondent: Baltyk International Ltd
Heard at: Leeds (via CVP)
On: 18th to 20th May 2021, 8th and 9th June 2021 and 27th
August 2021 (in Chambers).
Before: Employment Judge Eeley
Mr D Dorman-Smith
Mr M Taj
Representation
Claimant: Ms E Stockdale, solicitor
Respondent: Mr R Mackenzie, solicitor
RESERVED JUDGMENT
1. The claimant was wrongfully dismissed and is entitled to be paid notice pay.
2. The claimant’s claim of automatic unfair dismissal fails and is dismissed.
3. The claimant’s claim of pregnancy/maternity discrimination fails and is
dismissed.
4. By consent, the claimant’s claimed for unpaid holiday pay on termination of
employment is upheld.
Case No: 1806746/2020
10.5 Reserved judgment with reasons – rule 62 March 2017
REASONS
Background
1. By a claim form presented to the Tribunal on 18th November 2020 the
claimant brought several claims against her former employer, the
respondent. The claims were identified by Employment Judge Wade in her
case management order of 4th February 2021 thus:
1.1 Unpaid holiday on termination of employment.
1.2 Wrongful dismissal.
1.3 S99 ERA automatically unfair dismissal- principal reason being
connected with pregnancy and the taking of maternity leave.
1.4 Equality Act s18(4) dismissal as unfavourable treatment because of
having exercised the right to maternity leave.
2. The Tribunal were referred to the contents of an agreed bundle of
documents which ran to 48 pages together with some additional emails
which were submitted part way through the hearing. The Tribunal received
witness statements and heard oral evidence from:
2.1 The claimant.
2.2 Mr Soran Tawfik- the respondent’s sole director.
2.3 Agnieszka Bachwak- Store Assistant.
2.4 Liliana Bolovan- store assistant.
2.5 Graham Ellis- respondent’s accountant.
2.6 Marta Olejarczyk- respondent’s store manager.
Part way through the case the hearing was adjourned to ensure that an
interpreter could be provided for Mr Tawfik for the purposes of him giving
his witness evidence. Submissions were received on behalf of both parties.
In these reasons numbers in square brackets refer to pages in the agreed
trial bundle unless otherwise indicated.
Findings of fact
3. The respondent runs a number of grocery stores selling international
groceries. The claimant worked in the respondent’s Scarborough store as a
shop assistant. She started work on 26th November 2018. She received no
written terms and conditions. She worked 24 hours per week for £8.21 per
hour. Her days of work were Monday to Friday and weekends if the need
arose to cover for another member of staff. The claimant was initially told
by the respondent that she was only allowed a holiday entitlement of 2
weeks at 24 hours per week. The Scarborough shop ran a shift system. The
morning shift ran from 8am to 3pm and the afternoon/evening shift was 3pm
to 9pm. The employees in the shop fitted their working patterns within this
shift system.
To continue reading
Request your trial