Ms K Reilly v RT Management Bridgeton Ltd: 4107984/2020
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 29 June 2022 |
| Date | 29 June 2022 |
| Published date | 11 July 2022 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Citation | 4107984/2020 |
| Subject Matter | Disability Discrimination |
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND)
Case No: 4107984/2020
Held in Glasgow on 10 June 2022
5
Employment Judge: C McManus
Members: J S Anderson
J Burnett
Ms K Reilly Claimant
10
In Person
RT Management Bridgeton Limited Respondent
No appearance and
15
No representation
JUDGMENT OF THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL
The unanimous judgment of the Tribunal is that:-
20
1. A declaration is made that the claimant’s dismissal by the respondent was an
unfair dismissal.
2. The claimant is awarded the sum of £2092.80 (TWO THOUSAND AND
NINETY TWO POUNDS AND EIGHTY PENCE) as a compensatory award
in respect of this unfair dismissal.
25
3. The claimant’s claim of harassment under section 26 of the Equality Act 2010
and is successful.
4. The claimant is awarded the sum of £10,000 (TEN THOUSAND POUNDS) in
respect of injury to feelings (solatium).
5. The respondent has made an unauthorised deduction from wages contrary to
30
Section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 in terms of unpaid wages and
the respondent is ordered to pay to the claimant the sum of £26.16 (TWENTY
SIX POUNDS AND SIXTEEN PENCE) in respect of such unpaid amount.
4107984/2020 Page 2
6. A declaration is made under section 30(3)(a) Working Time Regulations 1998
(‘WTR’), that the respondent has refused to permit the claimant to exercise
her right to an uninterrupted rest break under Regulation 12 of the WTR.
7. Compensation is awarded to the claimant under section 30(4) WTR, being the
sum of £517.44 (FIVE HUNDRED AND SEVENTEEN POUNDS AND
5
FORTY FOUR PENCE).
REASONS
Background
1. There were telephone Case Management Preliminary Hearings (‘TCMPHs’)
in this case on 3 March and 2 September 2021. The claims are in respect of:
10
-
• Automatic Unfair Dismissal
• Failure in duty to make reasonable adjustments (section 20/ 21 of
Equality 2010)
• Harassment (section 26 of Equality Act 2010 re. a number of protected
15
characteristics)
• Unlawful deductions from wages
2. The claimant was unrepresented. The claimant requested that adjustments
be made by the Tribunal, in particular, rest breaks as required and that those
present in the hearing room avoid using perfume, spray deodorant or other
20
aerosol chemicals such as hairspray. Those adjustments were made.
3. A representative for the respondent appeared at both TCMPHs. On INSERT
June 2022 the Tribunal and claimant received correspondence from the
respondent’s HR function informing that the respondent had ‘ceased trading’
in March 2022.
25
4. Case Management Orders were issued with the Notes following the TCMPH
in March and September 2021. Without explanation, the respondent did not
comply with the Orders issued on them.
4107984/2020 Page 3
5. There was no appearance for or on behalf of the respondent at this Final
Hearing. Evidence was heard on oath or affirmation from the claimant and
one other witness, Max Fullerton, who was previously employed by the
respondent in a similar role to the claimant’s.
6. The respondent had not complied with the Case Management Orders re a
5
Joint Bundle of Productions. The claimant relied on papers contained in two
separate Bundles, each ordered, paginated and numbered consecutively
within each Bundle. Documents within these Bundles are referred to by their
page number within each Bundle: B1(1 – 108) and B2 (1 – 83).
7. On 30 May 2022 the Tribunal received email correspondence from RaceTrack
10
HR stating:- informing that the respondent had ‘ceased to trade’ on 31 March
2022. A reply was sent from the Tribunal office noting that the respondent
remained listed in Companies House as active and asking whether there
would be any attendance for or on behalf of the respondent. The reply to this
was a re-statement that the respondent has ceased to trade and an attached
15
accountant letter also stating that position.
8. At the Hearing, the claimant produced documents from Companies House
showing a change in registered address for the respondent, effective from 13
May 2022. The address set out above for the respondent is the address
shown in Company House records to be the respondent’s registered address
20
from 13 May 2022 .
Issues
9. The issues for determination by this Tribunal were :-
Unfair Dismissal
• What was the reason for the claimant’s dismissal?
25
• Was that dismissal an automatically unfair dismissal in terms of the
Employment Rights Act 1996 (‘the ERA’)?
To continue reading
Request your trial