Miss V Bailey v Cotswold Printing Company Ltd (Ta Wercxo) and others: 1406054/2020
JUDGMENT
The claims against the Third and Fourth Respondents are dismissed. Employment Judge Midgley Date: 24 Februrary 2022 Judgment sent to parties: 2 March 2022 FOR THE TRIBUNAL OFFICE Note Reasons for the judgment having been given orally at the hearing, written reasons will not be provided unless a request was made by either party at the hearing or a written request is presented by either party within 14 days of the sending of this written record of the decision. Case No: 1406054/2020 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Verity Bailey Respondent: Cotswold Printing Co Limited Heard at: Bristol via VHS On: 22 – 23 March 2022 Before: Employment Judge King Representation Claimant: Susan Mansfield (lay representative) Respondent: Did not attend JUDGMENT[1]The application for WFPG Ltd to be added as a Respondent is dismissed.[2]The application for Adam Soble to be added as a Respondent is dismissed.[3]The complaint of unfair dismissal is well founded. The Respondent unfairly dismissed the Claimant.a. The Respondent is ordered to pay the Claimant the sum of £769.24 in respect of the Basic Award.b. The Respondent is ordered to pay the Claimant the sum of £3,619.61 in respect of the Compensatory Award. This includes a 25% uplift for the Respondent’s breach of the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures.[4]The complaint of breach of contract in respect of notice pay is well founded. The Respondent is ordered to pay the Claimant the sum of £1,923.10, subject to deductions for tax and National Insurance. This includes a 25% uplift for the Respondent’s breach of the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures.[5]The complaint in respect of unlawful deductions from wages is well founded. The Respondent is ordered to pay the Claimant the sum of £377.01. Case No: 1406054/2020[6]The complaint in relation to unpaid holiday is not well founded and is dismissed.[7]The complaint in relation to unpaid pension contributions is not well founded and is dismissed.[8]The Claimant’s application for a Time Preparation Order is granted. The Respondent is ordered to pay the Claimant £3,362.00 in respect of the Time Preparation Order.