Ms P Kirkland v C Mason T/a Hawthorn Education Service: 2409601/2022
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Case No 2409601/2022
Between
Ms P KirklandClaimantCaroline Mason t/a Hawthorn Education ServiceRespondent
Before
Employment Judge HorneIn person for claimantDate 25 June 2024
JUDGMENT
[1]The claimant was an employee of the respondent within the meaning of section 230(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.[2]The claimant was continuously employed by the respondent for at least two years ending with the effective date of termination. ________________________________ Employment Judge Horne 23 October 2023[1]The complaint of unfair dismissal under Part X Employment Rights Act 1996 is well-founded. The claimant was unfairly dismissed. The respondent is ordered to pay the claimant the following:(a) A basic award in the sum of £570.74, and(b) A compensatory award of £4,417.46[2]This award is increased by 25% ie £1,247.05 pursuant to section 207A Trade Union & Labour Relations Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 because the respondent unreasonably failed to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures 2015.1[3]The recoupment regulations do not apply. 1 The 25% uplift is less than the figure quoted in the extempore judgment whereby the award for no written statement of terms was erroneously included in the total to which the 25% was applied. Case No. 2409601/2022 2 No Written Statement[4]The respondent failed in its duty to provide the claimant with a written statement of the main terms of employment complying with ss1 to 4 Employment Rights Act 1996. Pursuant to section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 the above award is increased by the sum of £652.91, being four weeks’ gross pay. Holiday Pay[5]The complaint in respect of holiday pay is well-founded. The respondent made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's pay by failing to pay holiday pay and is ordered to pay the claimant the gross sum of £1,987.58. Preparation Time Order[6]There is an award of £1,000 pursuant to rule 76(1) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. Summary[7]The total amount payable by the respondent under this judgment is £9,875.74 taking into account corrections of the amounts expressed in the extempore judgment delivered on 24.06.24.2 Tribunal Judge Holt 25 June 2024
REASONS
[1]These are the formal Written Reasons for the Judgment given orally, with an explanation of the reasons for the decision, on 24 June 2024; my oral decision having been followed by a short judgment prepared by me on 25 June 2024 and which was sent by the Tribunal staff to the parties shortly thereafter. The remedies hearing in this matter took place on 15 May 2024. The parties to the litigation[2]The Claimant worked for the Defendant as an administrations manager from February 2019 until 24 August 2022. Throughout the case, the Claimant has been a litigant in person. The Respondent was/is Mrs Caroline Mason. The Respondent was represented by Mr Brian Hendley.[3]Because the Claimant attended the Tribunal as a litigant in person, at all stages I have borne in mind the advice to Judges in the Courts and Tribunals “Equal Treatment Benchbook”. The hearing on 24 June 2024 (like the earlier hearings I dealt with) was hybrid with me present in the hearing centre in Manchester and the parties appearing virtually by CVP. Case No. 2409601/2022 2 Background and previous stages in the litigation The substantive case[4]This was a claim brought by the Claimant for unfair dismissal, breach of contract, complaint relating to unpaid leave, failure to provide a written statement of dismissal, failure to provide a written statement of terms and conditions and changes to those terms, as well as for unauthorised deductions from pay.[5]The Claimant was employed by the Respondent (Caroline Mason t/a Hawthorn Education Services) and was employed from the Respondent’s home premises. The Claimant was employed to provide 13.75 hours a week of various types of administrative duties. The employment began in February 2019 and was terminated on 24 August 2022. (The period coincided with the COVID-19 pandemic from March 2020 onwards and so the Claimant worked from home increasingly from that point onwards).[6]The Respondent company provided specialist one-to-one education to children who were not in mainstream education. As the Claimant says in the ET1, Hawthorn Education Services had a website introducing a team of teachers, area managers and admin staff who, together, provided bespoke education services to children who could not cope with mainstream education.[7]The Claimant’s employment was ended by Mrs Mason on 24 August 2022 via a Zoom video meeting. The reason given was that the Claimant had allegedly sent an aggressive and intimidating email to a colleague, Debbie Cannon (“Debbie”), on 22 August 2022 who had been so upset by the contents that she had resigned. The Claimant disagreed that she had sent an email characterised as aggressive or intimidating email to Debbie.[8]The Claimant also claimed that she was not given a right of appeal nor was any dismissal decision given to her in writing nor was she given any reasons. The Claimant subsequently asked for the decision to be reconsidered and to at least be able to work a period of notice, but this was declined by the Respondent.[9]At a hearing on 24 March 2024 I considered documentary evidence, heard the oral evidence from Ms Kirkland and Mrs Mason, listened to submissions and I considered the claims and the Respondent’s responses. Due to the very poor preparation of the voluminous paperwork which was sent to me in several ways including multiple email attachments sent in several tranches and where the proposed hearing bundle paginations did not match other versions of the bundle, a huge amount of time was wasted with confusion surrounding cross-referencing and the management of the quantities of evidence. Further, crucial tranches of the evidence, and particularly copies of key emails in the hearing bundle, were illegible. After the hearing the parties provided better copies of the illegible pages, which was helpful, but only added to the burden of managing the documents. This is relevant to the fact that I was unable to conclude the case within the day allocated (28.03.24) and the case had to be adjourned to 15 May 2024 when I delivered a detailed oral decision setting out my findings and decision. This is also relevant to the preparation time claim that I will deal with at the end of this Judgment. Case No. 2409601/2022 3[10]It should be noted that, at a previous hearing on 23 October 2023, Judge Horne had decided that the Claimant had been employed by the respondent for at least 2 years as an employee. It had been a significant plank in the Respondent’s Defence/Response that the Claimant had not been an employee but had in fact been self-employed.[11]In my decision on the substantive issues delivered on 15 May 2024, I explained in detail why I generally preferred the evidence of the Claimant to that of Mrs Mason. Ultimately, I found that I was easily satisfied that the Claimant had been dismissed in a way which was unfair insofar sections 94 and 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 were met and that her claim for unfair dismissal was therefore well-founded. I found that there had been a breakdown in working relationships between the Claimant and Mrs Mason, that Mrs Mason did not carry out an investigation into the relevant circumstances surrounding Debbie’s resignation and the background communications between the Claimant and Debbie, in circumstances where the alleged “cyber bullying” and relationship/communication deterioration between the Claimant and Debbie was what Mrs Mason subsequently alleged had led to the 24 August 2022 Zoom meeting and immediate dismissal of the Claimant by Mrs Mason. I found that Mrs Mason’s reactions and decision to dismiss the Claimant did not fall within the band of reasonable responses for deciding to terminate the employment having considered the authority of British Home Stores v Burchell [1980] ICR 303.[12]Having dismissed the Claimant, I found that Mrs Mason could not say what steps the Respondent had taken to reconsider the situation and reappointing the Claimant. I found that Mrs Mason said that she had invited the Claimant to a further meeting on 30 August 2022, but when asked what the purpose of the meeting was, Mrs Mason said that it was to discuss GDPR. Giving oral evidence Mrs Mason confirmed that the meeting was explicitly not about redeploying the Claimant and was simply “a conversation”. Mrs Mason also confirmed that she had lost trust in the Claimant and also confirmed that she did not carry out an investigation into the background and allegations resulting in the Claimant’s dismissal. Consequently, I was satisfied that the Claimant was never invited to discuss the dismissal nor was there an appeal process. The Claimant said that she was simply invited to a further 30 August 2022 Zoom meeting and there was no indication that Ms Mason was considering an appeal or reinstatement. This was also against the background that the Claimant was not given any warning that she was about to be dismissed before 24 August 2022. I was satisfied that the Claimant would not have left her employment, despite her evident frustrations, had she not been dismissed. In so far as the 24 August 2022 dismissal meeting itself was concerned, I was satisfied by the Claimant’s complaint that no procedure had been followed and that the Claimant was not told the purpose of the meeting in advance. She was not told that she could bring a representative or a supporter and was not told that she had a right of appeal.[13]As I explained on 15 May 2024, I also found that the Claimant had never been provided with a contract of employment. I found that she should have been given at least three weeks’ notice and she was not given any notice at all. Mrs Mason did not consider any alternatives to dismissal and there was no attempt to re-visit the decision to dismiss after the event by Mrs Mason. No reasonable procedure was followed and Mrs Mason did not follow the ACAS code of conduct. Case No. 2409601/2022 4[14]Further, in relation to the Claimant’s claims for holiday pay or unreasonable deductions from pay pursuant to Part II of the Employment Rights Act 1996, I found that the Claimant was never paid any holiday pay by the Respondent.[15]I also found that I could not see any evidence of any contributory fault on the part of the Claimant which might have contributed to Mrs Mason’s decision to dismiss the Claimant. Nor could I see any evidence that the Claimant would have been dismissed had the Respondent acted fairly and reasonably.[16]After the delivery of my decision on 15 May 2024, the parties were encouraged to try to compromise the financial claims element of the case and directions were given, including to provide a (much smaller) remedies hearing bundle, and the case was listed for a remedies hearing which proceeded on 24 June 2024. The remedies hearing 24 June 2024[17]There was hearing bundle [201 pages] and the slightly updated her schedule of loss and provided supporting documents [1-53]. The respondent provided a counter-schedule [53-55]. The Claimant also sought a preparation time Order [73&74 with a breakdown 75 onwards]. I note that well over half of this bundle was taken up with correspondence and other documents apparently relating to the Claimant’s preparation time application.[18]On 24 June 2024, again the hearing was by CVP. The Claimant answered Mr Hendley’s cross-examination questions, the parties made submissions based on their documents and I delivered an extempore judgment the same day. I will deal below with the fact that I made a mistake in relation to two heads of loss which I corrected when I promulgated the formal Judgment Order on 25 June 2024. I flag up now that I believe that the Claimant thinks that I made a mistake because there is no doubt a discrepancy between her note of what I said on 24 June 2024 and the formal Court Order dated 25 June 2024. I will set below the errors and the corrections.[19]I apologise that there has been a delay in producing these formal written reasons. As the parties have been told in correspondence from the Tribunal, this has been contributed to by the timing due to my other professional commitments and because the request arrived at the beginning of an extended period of leave. I thank the parties for their patience.
Issues
[20]At the remedies hearing the Respondent asserted that the Claimant had not been an employee throughout the whole of the period and that she had been self-employed for at least some of the time. The first issue I therefore had to decide was the Claimant’s employment status: employed versus self-employed.[21]At the remedies hearing the Claimant sought financial compensation, “damages” in the total sum of £23,819.98 for seven heads of loss which she described and listed as follows (the monetary claims in brackets) and in the order which she presented her claims: Case No. 2409601/2022 5 i. Statutory pay/redundancy (£570.74); ii. Loss of earnings (£12,405.29); iii. Loss of statutory rights (£500); iv. Lack of written statement/contract of employment (£652.91); v. Failure to follow the ACAS code – 25% uplift – (£3,532.23); vi. Detrimental treatment – 25% uplift – (£3,532.23); vii. Holiday pay (£2,626.58);[22]The respondent’s counter-schedule was brief in the extreme and there was no meaningful skeleton argument from the respondent. Nonetheless, it was agreed that the period when the Claimant worked for the Respondent was 18 February 2019 to 24 August 2022 and that the Claimant’s date of birth was 17 December 1959. The respondent agreed the Claimant’s annual pay figures of £5,223.25. The Respondent calculated a basic award at £466.36 and agreed the loss of statutory rights figure at £500. The respondent left the “deductions for mitigation” to the determined by the Tribunal and also the failure to follow the ACAS code. The respondent calculated the net value of the holiday pay claim at £1,987.58 and conceded that I should find that the failure to provide a written contract of employment would result in an award equating to between two and four weeks gross weekly pay. That meant that the issues for me to determine were all of those listed at paragraph 20 above, (except the loss of statutory rights at 21(iii)).
Evidence
[23]The Claimant gave oral evidence was asked cross-examination questions by the Respondent’s representative. She relied on the 201-page hearing bundle which included extracts from her GP medical records and accounts relating to her self-employed Air B&B business. For completeness, I record that she did not provide a formal medical report. The parties also made brief submissions based on their written documents. Relevant Legal Principles[24]I have calculated the unfair dismissal brought under Part X of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (“ERA”) given that I had previously decided that her claim was well-founded.[25]In making my decision I applied section 207A Trade Union & Labour Relations Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 because the respondent unreasonably failed to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures 2015.[26]I noted that the recoupment provisions did not apply. Case No. 2409601/2022 6[27]In making my decision I noted that the Respondent failed in its duty to provide the Claimant with a written statement of the main terms of employment complying with ss1 to 4 Employment Rights Act 1996 and considered section 38 of the Employment Act 2002.[28]I also considered the Claimant’s claim for preparation time and made an Order pursuant to rule 76(1) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. Relevant Findings The Claimant’s employment status[29]The issue of the Claimant’s employed versus self-employed status had concerned Judge Horne at a hearing on 23 October 2023. By para 2 of his decision on that date, Judge Horne said that he found that the Claimant had been “continuously employed by the respondent for at least 2 years ending on the effective date of termination”. Judge Horne did not provide a detailed written judgement. The parties have not provided me with a transcript of that hearing. In understood that the Respondent’s case is that Mrs Mason had always believed that the Claimant had been self-employed. This is a central basis upon which the Respondent resisted the claims.[30]Since Judge Horne’s decision, none of the following steps have been taken which could have been taken:a. The Respondent has never provided any contract, or terms and conditions or correspondence which points to a time when the Claimant’s status changed from self-employed to employed in the light of Judge Horne’s findings.b. The Respondent has not amended their response to the claim via the ET3 form or supporting documents or otherwise.c. At the previous hearing in March 2024, no one drew my attention to this as an issue and no one asked me to make a finding on the point.d. The Respondent did not ask for an adjournment to get a transcript of what Judge Horne had said, if indeed he made a specific finding, which I find unlikely given the wording of his Judgment.e. Even in submissions on 24 June 2024, Mr Hendley did not give a date for any change of status. He just repeated Mrs Mason’s subjective belief which has been superseded by Judge Horne’s decision.f. Despite Ms Kirland making confusing reference in her oral evidence to her being treated the “same” way as the teachers and other staff employed by the Respondent, I find that the Claimant was employed throughout. As she also said, the other staff seem to have been given documentation to corroborate their self-employed status. She was not. Case No. 2409601/2022 7[31]I therefore found that the Claimant had been employed throughout and my calculations were made on that basis. Statutory pay/redundancy Basic award[32]The Claimant is entitled to a basic award and a compensatory award pursuant to s118 ERA.[33]The formula to calculate the basis award is 1.5 weeks’ pay for each year that Claimant was 41 years or above, multiplied the full number of years’ service, multiplied by the gross weekly wage. The Claimant worked for 3 full years (around 3.5 years in reality) but the award is based on full years’ service.[34]The Claimant claimed £570.74 whereas the Respondent conceded £466.36 on the basis of gross weekly pay of £155.45. (The Respondent’s calculation was: £5,223.25/33.6 = £155.45 Basic award: 2 x 1.5 x £155.45 - £466.36)[35]The Claimant had calculated her weekly rate at £126.83 a week in 2022 and on the basis that she had been an employee for 3.5 years. On the Claimant’s figures, she claimed. The correct multiplier was therefore (1.5 x 3 =) 4.5. I therefore allowed the Claimant’s claim on the basis of (4.5 x £126.83) and awarded the £570.74 claimed. (Note, the Claimant did not seek to amend her claim on the basis of the Respondent’s higher weekly average of £155.45 which is why I did not interfere with her calculation at £126.83 per week).[36]The basic award was therefore £570.74. Loss of earnings[37]The Claimant claimed £12,405.29. The Respondent did not provide an alternative calculation but strongly opposed the claimed award.[38]In the period (8 months) between 1 January 2022 and 24 August 2022 the Claimant earned £5,223.25 gross which equated to a month £625.91 gross. The Claimant used that figure to claim a further 19 months to 28 March 2024 in full, making a claim of £12,405.29. The Respondent did not dispute these figures used for the calculation in the counter-schedule [55] and simply pleaded “Deduction for mitigation to be determined by the Tribunal”.[39]The Respondent argued throughout that the Claimant did not mitigate her losses since her dismissal in August 2022. In her submissions document and also in oral submissions, the Respondent has argued consistently that the Claimant has only Case No. 2409601/2022 8 provided evidence of 6 job applications since the end of her employment applied for over a 12 months period (an average of one job application every 2 months). This was against the background that the Claimant has always been candid about the fact that she was establishing an Air B&B business in the time that she was working for the Respondent. The Claimant was open about the fact that she only wanted to work 13.75 hours a week for the Respondent in order to accommodate her Air B&B endeavours. The Claimant’s evidence was also that the employment with the Respondent had always been flexible in terms of working from home. During and following the COVID-19 pandemic, she had worked from home increasingly. In the end, the vast majority of the time she worked from home, apart from occasional meetings. The work was administrative, and the Claimant got more done when working from home.[40]At the hearing the Claimant told me that her loss of earnings claim was limited to an end date of March 2024 on the basis that this is when the Air B&B business “took off”.[41]At the hearing the Claimant gave the following evidence regarding her failure to find another job and to mitigate her losses:a. Top of the list was that she had been “working to improve” her Air B&B business. The Claimant was at pains to emphasise that she has run her Air B&B business at the same time as working for the Respondent and that she had successfully managed both roles. However, I noted that the Claimant’s evidence included the following: Previously I worked weekend. I now have control. I am free and not bound by doing tasks on certain days. I can let more”. The Claimant’s oral evidence also included, “I could find a huge number of jobs. I have found suitable jobs that will fit in with my business. These are the ones I have focussed onb. She has not been well.c. That she is now 64, her age being a disincentive to prospective employers.d. That the Respondent had not given the Claimant a reference. When the cross-examination revealed that she had never asked for a reference, the Claimant responded that that, given that she had been dismissed, she said words to be the effect that she did not anticipate getting a useful reference.e. As per the submissions document, that this case has “dominated her life”.[42]The Respondent’s case was that the Claimant did not mitigate her losses by:a. Failing to attend the online Zoom meeting organised by Mrs Mason at the end of August 2022 in which her position would have been discussed and that the Claimant thereby deprived herself of the opportunity to appeal.b. That the Claimant rejected the possibility of a good job eg working 5 day job with a firm of solicitors. Impliedly this indicated that the Claimant was Case No. 2409601/2022 9 highly -employable and, again by implication, she should either have taken this job or it is evidence that she could easily have found other similar work.c. When Mrs Mason researched the jobs market, she had found 14 jobs on one occasion which were the type of roles which, prima facie, would have been within the Claimant’s capabilities.d. It was clear that developing the Claimant’s Air B&B business was her priority.[43]Having considered all the evidence presented, supported by documentation, I am not satisfied that the Claimant has mitigated her loss. These are my reasons:a. Firstly, I find that the Claimant had been a competent and diligent employee. She did nothing by her behaviour to bring the dismissal onto herself.b. Secondly, I was satisfied by the Claimant’s evidence explaining her stance on her failure to attend the Zoom end of August 2022 Zoom meeting. I was satisfied that Mrs Mason simply wanted information such as computer pass codes and the like from the Claimant. I am satisfied that the proposed meeting was never going to be an opportunity for the Claimant and Mrs Mason to discuss the Claimant resuming her role. I have seen no evidence that the Respondent wanted the Claimant back or that they would have done so. Mrs Mason had made up her mind and would not have backed down, I find.c. I appreciate that there is a degree of subjectivity, but I found the Claimant, in her ways of conducting the litigation, to be well-organised, on top of the detail, diligent and thorough. (If anything she had a tendency to be focused on tiny details which has not helped her in the litigation because she seemed unable to be concise or to summarise issues). Nonetheless, the habit of systematic thoroughness is undoubtedly a valuable characteristic in an administrative manager. The Claimant presented as very professional with a credible appearance and good, clear communication skills. These qualities are ones which would make her attractive as an administrator employee. In her evidence at the hearings she came across as someone who would not let problems lie and would do her utmost to sort them out, even when dealing with the difficult job of chasing those that owed money; debt-chasing being part of her role with the Respondent and an issue which contributed to the deterioration in professional relations between the Claimant and Mrs Mason. I am therefore satisfied that the Claimant was, and would be, an excellent addition to a team dealing with administration.d. Linked to the above, I am not satisfied that the lack of job reference would have made much of a difference to this Claimant. There was no evidence that not getting the solicitor role was down to the Claimant not having a reference. The Claimant did not want to work full-time hours. Case No. 2409601/2022 10e. I can imagine that preparing for the case, the slow resolution of the issues, and the very real challenges of dealing with the Tribunal administration, combined with combative exchanges with the Respondent’s legal advisers has been stressful for the Claimant. (For the record the Claimant has not complained about Mr Hendley, but she did complain about Mr Hussain his predecessor). Undoubtedly the case will have been on her mind frequently. However, in no way is this an acceptable reason not to work, nor a reason not to look for work. Most litigants in the Tribunal, like Mrs Mason, continue to work at the same time has having the inconvenience of having to prepare for hearings.f. I had a great deal of sympathy for the Claimant feeling at a disadvantage as she has aged in the cultural context that we find ourselves and well-noted disparities in opportunities and pay, based on gender. Having said that, I take judicial notice that women tend to dominate in both the provision of administration and education services. As a competent woman with a great deal of experience, I am satisfied that she could easily have found a sympathetic employer. In fact, it seems that she made great progress with the job with the solicitors. In the end, I find that she did not take the job because she preferred to work from home, less hours and more flexibly because she wanted to concentrate on developing her Air B&B business. The figures she has provided indeed show that she has grown her Air B&B business successfully in the period relevant to her claims.[44]Turning to deal with the poor health claims, in her previous documentation, including her submissions document, the Claimant discussed having been to her GP in December of 2021. She alludes to that having been caused by her situation at work. She was prescribed medication but managed to get through that patch without even taking the medication. However, once she was dismissed, the Claimant’s evidence was that she returned to her GP and was re-prescribed the anti-depressant medication, Sertraline, which she “takes to this day”. I have seen some extracts from the Claimant’s medical records at [25 onwards]. She was prescribed Sertraline in December 2021. Other entries of note and potentially relevant include:16 May 2019; 1 December 2021 – ongoing anxiety and seeing a counsellor; 20 September 2022; 21 December 2022 – groin pain. Entries saying that she runs Air B&B; 19 January 2023 – depression medication review; 28 April 2023 bowel problems and IBS and “under a bit of stress recently”; An appointment on 5 March 2024 when she is described as having anxiety which she has used for “some years”. She preferred to continue with Sertraline in the context of the Tribunal hearing; An appointment on 12 March 2024 which mentions “Chronic depression” and the hearing coming up at the end of March 2024; an appointment around the time of the previous hearing on 23 March 2024 when the Claimant was said to be under a “lot of stress recently”, but the appointment dealt with a number of benign skin issues; An appointment on 26 March 2024 to discuss benign skin lesions.[45]As alluded to above, I was not provided with any more formal medical evidence or medical opinion dealing with the Claimant’s assertion that her dismissal and her adverse dealings with the Respondent and the case has made her ill. Overall, I am not satisfied that there the case has made her ill. It seems that she felt down in September 2022 after she was dismissed, but I see no evidence that she has stopped her doing Case No. 2409601/2022 11 her Air B&B business which she repeatedly said that she was “developing”. Further, she said that she was mitigating losses by developing her Air B&B business and yet, against this success, she still has a Sertraline prescription. Consequently, I am not satisfied that what appeared to be relatively mild stress, anxiety or depression are linked to her choice not to work. I do, however, note that the Claimant has been stressed on the approach to these hearings. Unfortunately, she is not the only one and it is regrettable that the justice system is so stressful for so many people. (in so saying, I do not imagine that it has been easy for Mrs Mason either). Psychological is not usually a medical diagnosis of the type that sounds in damages.[46]Overall, I am satisfied that the real and fundamental reason why the Claimant has not found paid employment to replace her work with the Respondent is that she was/is an excellent Air B&B host and she has found that she can earn more money having Air B&B guests, being self-employed and being her own boss. I find that it must be easy for someone with the Claimant’s skills, friendly polite manner and attention to detail to be able to cover what she was earning with the Respondent ie around £126 a week as a solicitous Air B&B host.[47]Mr Hendley submitted throughout that I have to base my decision on what is “just and equitable”. I find that the Claimant was very upset immediately after the redundancy and that it will have taken her a while to decide what to do. And that looking for jobs, applying, dealing with interviews and the like would have taken her some time. Also, I am allowing some time for the Claimant to reorganise her Air B&B business and to invest further time, if nothing else, in increasing the business. I allow 6 months at the rate £652.91 a month as per the monthly figure in the Claimant’s schedule of loss. I calculate £3,917.46. Loss of statutory rights[48]The Respondent agreed the Claimant’s claim for loss of statutory rights at £500. Compensatory award[49]The global Compensatory award was therefore (£3,917.46 + £500 =) £4,417.46. Failure to follow the ACAS code[50]Noting that the Claimant claimed an uplift of 25% (£3,532.23) on £12,405.29, I was satisfied that, at the Zoom meeting in which she was dismissed, she asked what grievance procedure was being followed. The Claimant stated that she considered that a procedure should be followed which starts with a warning and that summary dismissal is only appropriate for very serious contraventions of a Code of Practice. She asked what Code of Practice or Policy Mrs Mason was following. There was none. The Claimant asked Mrs Mason to put in writing her decision and the reasons for it. She did not. The Claimant also sent a letter, requesting that the Respondent Case No. 2409601/2022 12 reconsider, reinstate her or at least allow her a Notice Period. She did not receive any indication that her request was ever considered. Consequently, I have decided to award a further 25%.[51]It should be noted that I fell into error at the point of giving my extempore decision on 24 June 2024. (I erroneously gave the figure of £1,394,53). Immediately realising my error, I corrected this in the Judgement Order of 25 June 2024. My Order was and continues to be that the Claiamnt is entitled to 25% of (£570.74 + £4,417.46 =) £4,988.20 ie £1,247.05.[52]Consequently, the award pursuant to section 207A Trade Union & Labour Relations Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 because the respondent unreasonably failed to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures 2015 is £1,247.05. Lack of written statement/contract of employment[53]The Claimant claimed £652.91 equating to 4 weeks. The counter-schedule simply said that the award should be for 2 to 4 weeks. I award the 4 weeks claimed at £652.91. “Detrimental treatment uplift”[54]The Claimant claimed a further 25% uplift of £3,532.23. In my extempore decision I again fell into error making a further award of £836.72. With reflection, I realised that I had made a double recovery-type award and should not have explicitly made an award in an attempt to compensate the Claimant for the way that Mrs Mason had treated her. This was an error of law. I corrected the position in my Judgment order of 25 June 2024 but fear that I have confused the Claimant. For the avoidance of doubt £836.72 was not included in my final Judgment, nor is it now. Holiday pay[55]The Claimant claimed holiday pay in the sum of £2,626,58. The Respondent calculated £1,987.58 on the basis of the detailed calculations at [53 & 54] and noting that there is a limit of 28 days or 5.6 weeks for the purposes of holiday pay calculations. I award £1,987.58 Preparation time[56]The Claimant had complained for some time that (Mr Hendley’s predecessor) Mr Hussain’s unhelpful approach forced her to have to do additional otherwise unnecessary work and also she claimed £100 for materials. At [73] she claims 155 hours additional time preparing for the case. In the bundle the Claimant provided a detailed log of all the work she has done. Case No. 2409601/2022 13[57]It is an unavoidable fact that Claimants have the burden of proof in ET proceedings and so have much of the “running” in preparing cases. Pursuant to Rule 76(1) of the Tribunal Rules a tribunal may make a costs order or a preparation time order (PTO) and shall consider whether to do so where it considers that – (a) a party (or that party’s representative) has acted vexatiously, abusively, disruptively or otherwise unreasonably in either the bringing of the proceedings (or part) or the way that the proceedings (or part) had been conducted. I find that the Respondent has acted vexatiously and unreasonably in the way that they have defended the claim. Latterly this was compounded insofar as the Respondent did not get in contact with the Claimant after the earlier hearing in May 2024 and apparently did not engage in any negotiation whatsoever.[58]It should also be noted, however, that the Claimant has also significantly added to the burden of preparation by her failure to focus on the precise issues and to provide the relevant evidence in a concise manner. I appreciate the challenges of litigants in person faced with complex Tribunal Proceedings without legal advice and assistance and so it is inevitable that litigants like this Claimant are unable to apply reliable judgment regarding what is necessary preparation and what is not. Inevitably, a fear of not covering every permutation means that there was unnecessary time spent on preparation. Consequently both hearing bundles (particularly the March 2024 bundle) were unnecessary unwieldly. I also find that additional time was spent due to the fact that the Respondent was of the view that the Claimant was self-employed rather than an employee. However, the employment status issue was a genuine dispute in the case.[59]Against that background and applying my very wide discretion I award the Claimant £1,000 on the basis that there was an additional element of additional preparation time which could have been avoided had the Respondent acted reasonably in their approach to the litigation.