Mrs C Tackie-Yaoboi and Others v Mrs Z A Roseway and Mr A Roseway: 1401488/2023 and Others
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Case No 1401488/2023
Between
Mrs C Tackie-Yaoboi & 4 othersClaimantZoe Ann RosewayRespondent
Before
Employment Judge PiraniIn person for claimantNo Appearances for respondentDate 18 November 2025
JUDGMENT
The response is struck out.
REASONS
[1]By a letter dated 18 August 2025 the Tribunal gave the respondent an opportunity to make representations or to request a hearing, as to why the response should not be struck out because It has not been actively pursued.[2]The respondent has failed to make representations in writing, or has failed to make any sufficient representations, why this should not be done or to request a hearing. The response is therefore struck out.[3]The respondent will be entitled to notice of any hearings and decisions of the Tribunal but will only be entitled to participate in any hearing to the extent permitted by the Employment Judge. Approved by: Regional Employment Judge Pirani 14 October 2025 Judgment sent to the Parties on 14 October 2025 For the Tribunal Office Case Numbers: 1401488/2023 1401489/2023 1401494/2023 1401497/2023 1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS BETWEEN Claimants and Respondents Mrs C. Tackie-Yaoboi 1. Mrs Zoe-Ann Roseway Mrs M. Wills 2. Mr Ashley Roseway Mrs C. Waymouth[4]Mrs L. Smith Held at: Exeter On: 17 November 2025 Before: Employment Judge Smail Appearances Claimants: Each in Person Respondents: No Appearances[1]From henceforth Mrs Zoe-Ann Roseway will be known as the First Respondent and Mr Ashley Roseway as the Second Respondent.[2]The Response of the First Respondent is struck out. The Response of the Second Respondent has previously been struck out.[3]Each Claimant was unfairly dismissed by the Respondents.[4]Each Claimant was wrongfully dismissed without notice by the Respondents.
THE LAW
[5]The compensatory award for unfair dismissal of each Claimant is increased by 25% because of the Respondents’ failure to comply with the Case Numbers: 1401488/2023 1401489/2023 1401494/2023 1401497/2023 2 provisions of the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures.[6]The Respondents’ liability hereunder is joint and several.[7]The Respondents must pay Mrs Tackie-Yaoboi compensation of £3,903 within 14 days.[8]The Respondents must pay Mrs Wills compensation of £8,453.81 within 14 days.[9]The Respondents must pay Mrs Waymouth compensation of £2,702.50 within 14 days.[10]The Respondents must pay Mrs Smith compensation of £7,300.50 within 14 days.[1]All Claimants brought claims of unfair dismissal and failure to pay notice on 14 April 2023.[2]The First to Third Claimants were summarily dismissed for alleged gross misconduct on 17 January 2023. The Fourth Claimant was summarily dismissed for alleged gross misconduct on 24 January 2023.[3]All Claimants were employed by the Respondents at Chudleigh Preschool in Chudleigh, Devon. They had extensive lengths of service. The First Claimant from 10 September 2002; the Second from 1 June 1996, the Third from 1 October 2006; the Fourth from 25 May 2012.[4]The Claimants used to be employed by a Registered Charity no. 1028874 bearing the name Chudleigh Preschool. They transferred to the Respondents by way of a TUPE transfer when the Respondents bought the Preschool by way of a Deed dated 30 November 2022. The First Respondent was named the Ofsted Registered Person of the Preschool. Both Respondents were the owners of the Preschool and at the time of the dismissals ran the Preschool as a partnership. That partnership may have subsequently dissolved, but that does not matter for liability as between the Respondents and these Claimants. Case Numbers: 1401488/2023 1401489/2023 1401494/2023 1401497/2023 3 THE LAW Unfair dismissal[5]The tribunal has had regard to section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. By section 98(1) it is for the employer to show the reason, or if more than one, the principal reason for the dismissal. A reason relating to the conduct of an employee is a potentially fair reason. By section 98(4) where the employer has fulfilled the requirements of subsection (1), the determination of the question whether the dismissal is fair or unfair ( having regard to the reason shown by the employer)(a) depends on whether in the circumstances (including the size and administrative resources of the employer’s undertaking) the employer acted reasonably or unreasonably in treating it as a sufficient reason for dismissing the employee, and(b) shall be determined in accordance with equity and the substantial merits of the case.[6]This has been interpreted by the seminal case of British Home Stores v Burchell [1978] IRLR 379 (EAT) as involving the following questions:(a) Was there a genuine belief in misconduct?(b) Were there reasonable grounds for that belief?(c) Was there a fair investigation and procedure?(d) Was dismissal a reasonable sanction open to a reasonable employer?[7]We have reminded ourselves of the guidance in Sainsbury’s Supermarkets v Hitt [2003] IRLR 23 (CA) that at all stages of the enquiry the Tribunal is not to substitute its own view for what should have happened but judge the employer as against the standards of a reasonable employer, bearing in mind there may be a band of reasonable responses. This develops the guidance given in Iceland Frozen Foods v Jones [1982] IRLR 439 (EAT) to the effect that the starting point should always be the words of s. 98(4) themselves; that in applying this section an employment tribunal must consider the reasonableness of the employer’s conduct, not simply whether they, the employment tribunal, consider the dismissal to be fair. In judging the reasonableness of the employer’s conduct an employment tribunal must not substitute its decision as to what was the right course for that of the employer. In many, though not all, cases there is a band of reasonable responses to the employee’s conduct within which one employer might reasonably take one view, whilst another quite reasonably take another. The function of the employment tribunal, as an industrial jury, is to determine whether in the particular circumstances of each case the decision to dismiss the employee fell within the band of reasonable responses which a reasonable employer might have adopted. If the dismissal falls within the band, the dismissal is fair: if the dismissal is outside the band, it is unfair. Case Numbers: 1401488/2023 1401489/2023 1401494/2023 1401497/2023 4 Wrongful Dismissal[8]An employee is entitled to notice of dismissal, and compensation in lieu, unless as a matter of fact as determined objectively by the Tribunal, on the balance of probability, the employee committed a repudiatory breach of contract entitling the employer to dismiss without notice by way of acceptance of the breach. The burden is on the employer to prove this.
FINDINGS OF FACT
[9]Since the Hearing before Employment Judge Gibb on 28 March 2025, the First Respondent has not engaged with the proceedings. She was ordered to provide disclosure by 25 April 2025 and serve a witness statement by 23 May 2025. She did neither. She was given until 14 November 2025 to make representations why her Response should not be struck out. She failed to do so. She has not attended today. The Second Respondent’s Response was struck out on 25 November 2024. On 28 March 2025 the First Respondent successfully applied for reconsideration of a Judgment also made on 25 November 2024 striking out her Response for the first time. Employment Judge Gibb gave her a second chance. The First Respondent did not take it. I strike out her Response today.[10]By reason of their Responses being struck out, the Respondents fail to show a potentially fair reason for dismissal. Accordingly, these dismissals are unfair.[11]I have gone into the circumstances in a little more detail at the invitation of the Claimants. They wish to clear their name, as they have put it to me. They ask for these Reasons in writing.[12]It all went wrong at the Preschool when the First Respondent, notwithstanding TUPE, sought radically to change the terms and conditions of her employees. This happened at the beginning of January 2023. Mrs Wills had her hours cut from 23 to 3.5, was demoted from Lead Practitioner to Early Years Practitioner and had her rate of pay cut from £10.30 to £9.50 per hour. Mrs Tackie-Yaoboi had her hours cut from 6 hours as a Lead Practitioner and 4.5 hours as an Early Years Practitioner to 5 hours only as an Early Years Assistant with reduction in the hourly rate of pay. Mrs Waymouth lost 1.5 hours a week and a morning slot. Mrs Smith gained hours but at the expense of colleagues. She was uncomfortable about that.[13]The Claimants discussed these matters between themselves on a WhatsApp group. Between them they approached for guidance 2 former members of the Executive Committee that had run the charitable Case Numbers: 1401488/2023 1401489/2023 1401494/2023 1401497/2023 5 Unincorporated Association, namely Hope Richards and Charlotte Hall. Hope Richards decided not to send her child to the Preschool as a consequence of these matters.[14]The First Respondent on behalf of the Preschool dismissed all four Claimants without any sort of proper procedure on the basis that they were party to a conspiracy to harm the Preschool.[15]There was no reasonable basis for that belief of the First Respondent. The Claimants wished to challenge the unilateral variations to their terms and conditions or those of colleagues and sought information from former Executive members as to whether this was permitted contractually. They were entitled to object and explore their rights with the former Committee members. They were entitled to talk to one another on their WhatsApp group. CONCLUSION ON LIABILITY[16]These dismissals are unfair. By failing to participate in the proceedings the Respondents do not show a potentially fair reason for dismissal.[17]Even if the Respondents had participated in these proceedings, these dismissals would have remained substantively and procedurally unfair.[18]The Respondents do not prove that the Claimants were in repudiatory breach of contract so they must pay notice.
REMEDY
[19]Mrs Tackie-Yaoboi recovers a basic award of £2,520, Notice Pay of £1,008, £300 loss of statutory rights with £75 uplift on that figure for failure to follow ACAS procedures. She decided to retire so I have not awarded loss of earnings.[20]Mrs Wills recovers a basic award of £5,742.77, Notice Pay of £2,336.04, £300 loss of statutory rights with £75 uplift on that figure for failure to follow ACAS procedures. She decided not to pursue alternative work aside from occasional cover work and so I have not awarded loss of earnings.[21]Mrs Waymouth recovers a basic award of £1,529.50, Notice Pay of £798, £300 loss of statutory rights with £75 uplift on that figure for failure to follow ACAS procedures. She decided not to pursue alternative work and so I have not awarded loss of earnings.[22]Mrs Smith recovers a basic award of £3,847.50, Notice Pay of £3,078, £300 loss of statutory rights with £75 uplift on that figure for failure to Case Numbers: 1401488/2023 1401489/2023 1401494/2023 1401497/2023 6 follow ACAS procedures. She walked into a new job and so I have not awarded loss of earnings.