Ms S Riaz v Glamour Forever Ltd and SG HR Ltd: 1602611/2020
JUDGMENT
Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 – Rule 21[1]The claimant was unfairly dismissed by the R1 on 25th August 2021[2]Further to the above judgment, the claimant’s dismissal by R1 was automatically unfair because the reason, or, if more than one, the principal reason for her dismissal was either:a. That being an employee at a place where there was no health and safety representative or safety committee she brought to R1’s attention, by reasonable means, circumstances connected with her work which she reasonably believed were harmful or potentially harmful to health or safety and/orb. in circumstances of danger which the claimant reasonably believed to be serious and imminent and which she could not reasonably have been expected to avert, she left (or proposed to leave) or (while danger persisted) refused to return to her place of work or any dangerous part of the place of work and/orc. that she made protected disclosures tending to show that a criminal offence had been committed, was being committed or is was likely to be committed, and/or R1 had failed was failing or was likely to fail to comply with any legal obligation to which it was subject, and/or that the health or safety of any individual had been, was being or was likely to be endangered.[3]R1 subjected the claimant to the detriments alleged by her in her claim form on the ground that she had made protected disclosures as claimed.[4]R1 made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages.[5]R1 failed to provide the claimant with written employment particulars.[6]R2 is not dismissed from these proceedings pending the remedy hearing at which its status will be determined if it is not determined prior to that hearing. Case No: 1602611/2020[7]The sum to be awarded to the claimant, payable by the respondent, is to be assessed at a remedy hearing on a date to be notified. Employment Judge T. Vincent Ryan _____________________________ Date: 22.03.21[1]The claims against the Second Respondent, SG HR Ltd, are dismissed.[2]The First Respondent failed to provide the Claimant with a written statement of employment particulars and is ordered to pay the Claimant £1229.72.[3]The First Respondent was in breach of contract by terminating her employment without due notice and is ordered to pay £1817.10.[4]The First Respondent has failed to pay the Claimant’s holiday entitlement and is ordered to pay the Claimant the gross sum of £1229.72.[5]The First Respondent unfairly dismissed the Claimant and the dismissal was automatically unfair. The provisions of Section 100 and Section 120 of the ERA 1996 apply and the First Respondent is accordingly ordered to pay the Claimant the minimum basic award sum of £6562. Case Number: 2[6]The First Respondent shall pay the Claimant a compensatory award for loss of earnings in the sum of £2228.16.[7]The First Respondent shall pay the Claimant a compensatory award for injury to feelings the sum of £5000.[8]The compensatory award is subject to a 25% uplift due to the First Respondent’s failure to act in accordance with the ACAS guidelines and shall pay the Claimant the sum of £1807.04.[9]The First Respondent shall pay the Claimant for loss of statutory rights the sum of £350.[10]The claimant is responsible for any income tax or employee national insurance contributions that may be due on the sums awarded in respect of unpaid holiday pay.