Mr J Darling v Great British Inns Group Ltd and King Arthur Inns Ltd: 3312949/2022
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Case No 3312949/2022
Between
Mr J DarlingClaimantGreat British Inns Group Ltd and King Arthur Inns LtdRespondent
Before
Employment Judge GrahamDate 6 August 2024
JUDGMENT
[1]The Claimant’s employer at the material times was the Second Respondent.[2]The claim against the First Respondent is dismissed.[3]The ET1 will now be served on the King Arthur Inns Limited.[4]A final hearing is listed to take place on 15, 16, 17 July 2024.[1]The Claimant’s complaint of disability discrimination succeeds; the Respondent shall pay the Claimant compensation of £34,249.64.[2]The Claimant’s claim in breach of contract for notice pay succeeds; the Respondent shall pay the Claimant damages in the sum of £1230.76 gross, taxable in the hands of the Claimant.[3]The Claimant’s claim for holiday pay succeeds; the Respondent shall pay the Claimant £492.43 gross, taxable in the hands of the Claimant.[4]The Claimant’s claim for unlawful deduction of wages succeeds, the Respondent shall pay the Claimant £294.90 gross, taxable in the hands of the Claimant.[5]The Claimant’s complaint of unfair dismissal fails and is dismissed for want of jurisdiction; the Claimant did not have the required two year’s service.
REASONS
[1]Mr Darling was employed by the Respondent as the General Manager of a Pub and Restaurant between 25 October 2021 and 11 October 2022. The case has already been the subject of four Preliminary Hearings. The procedural history of the matter is set out by Employment Judge Graham in his Judgment with Reasons from 15 February 2024 and I am not going to repeat those here. Suffice to say that there was considerable confusion, (perhaps obfuscation) over the correct identity of the employer. Employment Judge Graham found that the present Respondent to these proceedings was the employer. The matter therefore comes before me to decide Mr Darling’s claims of disability discrimination, holiday pay, unauthorised deduction from wages and breach of contract.[2]No response has ever been filed. The Respondent has been in Administration since 13 February 2024. Consent of the Administrators to continue with these proceedings was obtained by Mrs Darling. An email to that affect from the Administrators is dated 13 March 2024.
The Issues
[3]The issues in this case were identified at a Preliminary Hearing before Employment Judge Anderson on 13 September 2023. Evidence[4]I had before me a witness statement from Mr Darling dated and signed on 16 October 2023 running to 30 paragraphs. I had a Disability Impact Statement dated 6 February 2024 running to 8 paragraphs. I also had a Schedule of Loss, which we discussed in detail. I was provided with a properly indexed and paginated Bundle of documents running to page 165. I am grateful to Mrs Darling for preparing that Bundle and submitting it in advance. The Law Disability
The Law
[5]For the purposes of the Equality Act 2010 (EqA) a person is said, at section 6, to have a disability if they meet the following definition: “A person (P) has a disability if –(a) P has a physical or mental impairment, and(b) the impairment has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on P’s ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.[6]The burden of proof lies with the Claimant to prove that he is a disabled person in accordance with that definition.[7]The expression ‘substantial’ is defined at Section 212 as, ‘more than minor or trivial’.[8]Further assistance is provided at Schedule 1, which explains at paragraph 2: “(1) The effect of an impairment is long-term if –(a) it has lasted for at least 12 months,(b) it is likely to last for least 12 months, or(c) it is likely to last for the rest of the life of the person affected. (2) If an impairment ceases to have a substantial adverse effect on a person’s ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities, it is to be treated as continuing to have that effect if that effect is likely to recur”.[9]As to the effect of medical treatment, paragraph 5 provides: “(1) An impairment is to be treated as having a substantial adverse effect on the ability of the person concerned to carry out normal day-to-day activities if –(a) measures are being taken to treat or correct it, and(b) but for that, it would be likely to have that effect. (2) ‘Measures’ includes, in particular medical treatment …”[10]Disability is a protected characteristic pursuant to s.4 of the Equality Act 2010.[11]Section 39(2)(c) and (d) proscribes discrimination by an employer by either dismissing an employee or subjecting him to any other detriment.[12]Section 39(5) imposes a duty on an employer to make reasonable adjustments. Reasonable Adjustments[13]Section 20 defines the duty to make reasonable adjustments, which comprises three possible requirements, the first of which might apply in this case set out at subsection (3) as follows:- “(3) The first requirement is a requirement, where a provision criterion or practice of A’s puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled, to take such steps as it is reasonable to have to take to avoid the disadvantage[14]Section 21 provides that a failure to comply with such a requirement is a failure to make a reasonable adjustment, which amounts to discrimination.[15]There are five steps to establishing a failure to make reasonable adjustments (as identified in the pre-Equality Act 2010 cases of Environment Agency v Rowan [2008] IRLR 20 and HM Prison Service v Johnson [2007] IRLR 951). The Tribunal must identify: 15.1. The relevant provision criterion or practice applied by or on behalf of the employer; 15.2. The identity of non-disabled comparators, (where appropriate); 15.3. The nature and extent of the substantial disadvantage suffered by the disabled employee; 15.4. The steps the employer is said to have failed to take, and 15.5. Whether it was reasonable to take that step.[16]The employer will only be liable if it knew or ought to have known that the Claimant was disabled and that he was likely to be affected in the manner alleged, Schedule 8 paragraph 20.[17]Claimants are not required to prove that they were disadvantaged, it is not a test of causation, it is a comparative exercise to test whether the PCP has the effect of disadvantaging the disabled Claimant more than trivially in comparison with others who are not disabled, see Sheikholeslami v University of Edinburgh 2018 IRLR 1090.[18]The obligation to make reasonable adjustments is on the employer. That means that it must consider for itself what adjustments can be made.[19]The duty is to make “reasonable” adjustments, to take such steps as it is reasonable for the employer to take to avoid the disadvantage. The test is objective. It is for the tribunal to determine, objectively, what is reasonable.[20]Section 136 requires that the claimant prove that the PCP was applied, and that it placed them at a disadvantage. They should also put forward and identify some potentially or apparently reasonable adjustment. If they do that, the burden of proof then shifts to the respondent that it would not have been reasonable to expect them to have made the adjustment, (paragraph 43 of Rentokil Initial UK Limited [2024] EAT 37). Direct Discrimination[21]Direct discrimination is defined at s.13 as follows: (1) A person (A) discriminates against another (B) if, because of a protected characteristic, A treats B less favourably than A treats or would treat others… (3) If the protected characteristic is disability, and B is not a disabled person, A does not discriminate against B only because A treats or would treat disabled persons more favourably than A treats B.[22]Section 23 provides that in making comparisons under section 13, there must be no material difference between the circumstances of the Claimant and the comparator. The comparator may be an actual person identified as being in the same circumstances as the Claimant, but not having his protected characteristic, or it may be a hypothetical comparator, constructed by the Tribunal for the purpose of the comparison exercise. The Claimant must show that he has been treated less favourably than that real or hypothetical comparator.[23]In a case of direct disability discrimination, the comparator would be a person in the same circumstances as the Claimant, but who is not disabled as defined in the Equality Act 2010, see London Borough of Lewisham v Malcolm [2008] UKHL 43.[24]The leading authority on when an act is because of a protected characteristic is Nagarajan v London Regional Transport [1999] IRLR 572. Was the reason the protected characteristic, or was it some other reason? One has to consider the mental processes of the alleged discriminator. Was there a subconscious motivation? Should one draw inferences that the alleged discriminator, whether he or she knew it or not, acted as he or she did, because of the protected characteristic? - (see paragraphs 13 and 17).[25]The protected characteristic does not have to be the only, nor even the main, reason for the treatment complained of, but it must be an effective cause. Lord Nicholls in Nagarajan referred to it being suffice if it was a, “significant influence”.[26]In respect of the burden of proof, s.136 reads as follows: “(2) If there are facts from which the court could decide, in the absence of any other explanation, that a person (A) contravened the provision concerned, the court must hold that the contravention occurred; (3) But subsection (2) does not apply if A shows that A did not contravene the provision.” Holiday Pay[27]The relevant law is contained in the Working Time Regulations 1998.[28]Regulations 13 and 13A provide together for a requirement that employers must allow workers a minimum of 5.6 weeks paid holiday per year. That is 28 days holiday for a full time worker.[29]Pursuant to regulation 14, a payment in lieu of untaken leave entitlement must be paid on termination of employment if the paid holiday taken is less than the accrued entitlement as at the date employment terminated.[30]The amount of holiday pay, as provided for by regulation 16, is to be calculated by reference to a week’s pay as defined in sections 221 to 224 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Where hours of work vary, one takes an average of the worker’s pay over the previous 12 week’s pay, (section 224), where hours of work do not vary but rate of pay does, one takes the previous 12 weeks average, where the hours of work and rate of pay does not vary, one takes the normal rate of pay.[31]Regulation 30 requires that a claim for unpaid holiday pay must be brought within 3 months of the date on which payment should have been made.[32]Different, but no less favourable, holiday pay terms may be agreed in a contract of employment. Unauthorised Deduction from Wages[33]Section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 provides that an employer shall not make an unauthorised deduction from a worker’s wages. Such a claim must be brought within three months of when the deduction was made. Disability[34]The first issue that I have to decide and make findings of fact upon, is the question of whether or not Mr Darling was at the material time a disabled person, as defined in the Equality Act 2010. The material time being the period of his employment between October 2021 and October 2022.[35]Amongst the medical evidence supplied is a letter in the Bundle, (page 134) from the Crisis Resolution and Home Treatment Team, which confirms that Mr Darling had been diagnosed with Recurrent Depressive Disorder and that he had suffered this impairment, since he was aged 20, some 19 years, his being aged 39 at the date of his dismissal. As to the effect of this impairment on his day to day activities, I simply turn to his Impact Statement, paragraph 1 which reads as follows: “The effects this has on my day to day life varies from lack of sleep due to experiencing nightmares, not wanting to get out of bed, black outs causing loss of time which can and has resulted in tasks not being completed on time, relying on my wife to get me to work on time, not wanting to socialise with family and friends, having a reduced appetite and feeling worthless leading to self-harm.”[36]The forgoing is with the benefit of medication, (Venlafaxine, Mirtazapine, Sertraline and Amitriptyline). The effects on day to day activities would be far worse without the benefit of medication. It is also entirely consistent with the medical evidence of Mr Darling both in this and every other respect and on the basis of that evidence, I have no difficulty at all in concluding Mr Darling was indeed a disabled person as defined in the Equality Act 2010, at the material time: he had at the material time a mental impairment that had a substantial adverse impact on his day to day activities which had been long term.[37]What’sApp messages copied in the bundle show that the Respondent was aware of the seriousness of Mr Darling mental ill health, corroborating what he says his wife told Christina. Fit Notes provided referred to severe anxiety. The Respondent knew enough that it ought to have made enquiries that would have provided it with information from which it would know that Mr Darling was disabled. It had constructive knowledge of his disability. Overview of Facts[38]That then brings us to the findings of fact in relation to the claims which Mr Darling brings.[39]The Respondent organisation, using that expression broadly given the somewhat opaque nature of its structure and the number of different limited companies with different family members involved, runs (Mr Darling thinks) something between perhaps eight and twelve Public Houses in the approximate geographical area of Milton Keynes.[40]Mr Darling’s employment with the Respondent commenced on 25 October 2021.[41]In August 2022, Mr Darling attempted self-harm, as a consequence of which he was signed off work unfit.[42]On 20 September 2022, Mr Darling was contacted by the Respondent, inviting him to a meeting to discuss “how we move forward”. That meeting took place on 22 September 2022 with somebody called Christina. He was told that the Respondent did not want him to return to the Red House (the name of the Pub and Restaurant he worked at as General Manager) as they did not think he could handle the stress of the job. They promised to try and find him another position.[43]Mr Darling chased on 24 September 2022 for an update on whether there was some other role for him and the reply he got from Christina was that he would not be working at the Red House any longer.[44]The Respondent asked Mr Darling on 25 September 2022 whether he would be prepared to take on a chef’s role within the business and he indicated that was not something he wanted to do.[45]On 7 October 2022, Mr Darling received a message from Christina asking him how he was. He explained that he was still waiting to hear from the Mental Health Team.[46]On 10 October 2022, Mr Darling noted that his wages had not been paid. The next day he spoke to Christina. She told him that there were no other jobs available within the business and that they would now pay him two weeks’ notice, his holiday pay and that his employment would now come to an end.[47]Correspondence continued after that with Mrs Darling acting on Mr Darling’s behalf, as she has done in these proceedings. The attitude of the Respondent, to summarise, was that Mr Darling did not have two years’ service so they could do what they want. Time[48]Mr Darling was dismissed on 11 October 2022, early conciliation was between 12 and 31 October 2022. He issued these proceedings on 31 October 2022. All of the claims are therefore in time. Analysis of each head of claim Direct Disability Discrimination[49]The first detriment relied upon is telling Mr Darling on 22 September 2022 that he could not continue in his role as General Manager. The essential allegation is upheld, he was told they did not want him as General Manager because they did not think he was up to it. The decision to dismiss on 12 October 2022 is the second detriment relied upon.[50]These are facts from which I could properly conclude that the reason for the Respondent’s actions, telling the Claimant they did not want him as General Manager any more and then dismissing him, was that he was disabled. The burden of proof therefore shifts to the Respondent, which has not participated in these proceedings and therefore has not been able to satisfy me that disability played no part in the decision either to remove him as General Manager or to dismiss him.[51]In those circumstances I find that the complaint of Direct Disability Discrimination is upheld. Failure to Make Reasonable Adjustments[52]The PCP relied upon is the expectation for General Managers to carry out their full duties. There clearly was such an expectation. Mr Darling was placed at a disadvantage by that expectation because of his mental ill health. The reasonable adjustments, I find, that could have been made to that PCP in order to alleviate the disadvantage include: 52.1. reducing his duties as a General Manager; 52.2. providing him with a phased return to work on lesser duties; and 52.3. providing him with an alternative role.[53]These are facts upon which I could properly conclude that there was a failure to make reasonable adjustments. As I have explained, the Respondent has taken no part in these proceedings and it is therefore unable to discharge the burden of proof that it would not have been reasonable for those adjustments to have been made.[54]Therefore I uphold the complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments. Holiday Pay[55]The claim for holiday pay has been advanced by Mr Darling on the basis that although he has not been able to produce his Contract for reasons canvassed in the earlier decision of Employment Judge Graham, that he has seen his job advertised with holiday pay stated at 33 days, he therefore asserts that his holiday entitlement was 33 days per year.[56]We had in the Bundle correspondence from Mr Tudor, a former Director of this particular company, who said that the company’s holiday pay provisions were the statutory 28 days, that leave was to be taken within the financial year April to April and that there was no carry forward of untaken leave.[57]On the balance of probabilities I have to find that those arrangements which are the usual arrangements by an employer that is not going out of its way to be generous, are more likely than not to have been the holiday pay in place. The burden of proof under this head of claim, is on Mr Darling.[58]I accept his evidence that during the holiday year that commenced in April 2022, he had taken five days holiday in April and five days holiday in July, a total of ten days holiday taken. He had been due to take holiday in August, but did not take it because of his ill health.[59]April to October is one half of the year, so the accrued holiday entitlement at the date of dismissal was 14 days. 10 Days had been taken, leaving 4 days accrued but untaken.[60]Those are the essential findings of fact on the holiday pay claim. Unauthorised Deduction of Wages[61]The claim in this respect is based upon calculations in the Loss of Earnings Schedule of Loss, which I accept. The figure sought there is £294.90. Breach of Contract[62]The breach of contract claim is in respect of unpaid tax that HMRC were demanding from Mr Darling, saying he had not paid enough tax through his PAYE deductions.[63]What I heard was that Mr Darling had been told by HMRC that the Respondent in its reporting of pay to HMRC, appears to have duplicated payments made to him and that therefore, further tax was due, on money which he had not in fact received.[64]According to the List of Issues, this claim is advanced as a breach of contract by the Respondent, in misrepresenting to HMRC the wages he had been paid, leading to its demand for further Income Tax in the sum of £1,216.80.[65]The List of Issues does not identify what the alleged breach of contract, or the alleged contractual term is, that has been broken and suggests there must be an implied term that an employer will provide accurate information to HMRC. I heard from Mr and Mrs Darling that in correspondence with HMRC, they are being told that matters will be resolved once these proceedings are concluded, but in the meantime, Mr Darling has been repaying the allegedly owed tax in adjustments to his tax code.[66]The burden of proof in a breach of contract claim is on the Claimant. I am not satisfied that this loss has been incurred, or that it is properly recoverable as a breach of contract. The position should be that Mr Darling demonstrates to HMRC that he has not received the money that his employer reports that he has received and the amount of tax he is liable to pay should therefore be adjusted according, with his receiving credit for any overpayment.[67]That aspect of the breach of contract claim I will not uphold.[68]There is a second aspect to the breach of contract claim, which is for two weeks’ pay in lieu of notice. Mr Darling was told that he would be paid two weeks’ pay being the contractual notice to which he was entitled and he has not been paid that sum of money.[69]That claim I uphold. Remedy
Law
[70]Where a claim has succeeded before an Employment Tribunal under the Equality Act 2010, section 124 provides that the Tribunal may order the Respondent to pay to the complainant compensation of an amount corresponding to the damages the Respondent might have been ordered to pay by a county court. Section 119(1) sets out what a County Court may order, which is to grant any remedy which could be granted in the High Court in proceedings for tort or judicial review, which includes compensation for financial loss and personal injury. Such compensation can include damages for injury to feelings, (s119 (4). Those damages would be payable by reason of a statutory tort on the part of the Respondent, the measure of damages in respect of which is to place the Claimant, so far as is possible, in the position that he would have been in but for the discrimination, (see Ministry of Defence v Channock [1994] IRLR 509 EAT).[71]Damages are assessed under two headings; General Damages for pain, suffering, loss of amenity or injury to feelings and Special Damages in respect of the financial losses flowing directly from the discrimination.[72]In the case of(1) Armitage,(2) Marsden and(3) HM Prison Service v Johnson [1997] IRLR 162 the EAT set out five principles to consider when assessing awards for injury to feelings in cases of discrimination: 72.1. Awards for injury to feelings are compensatory. They should be just to both parties. They should compensate fully without punishing the tortfeasor. Feelings of indignation at the tortfeasor’s conduct should not be allowed to inflate the award. 72.2. Awards should not be too low as that would diminish respect for the policy of the legislation. Society has condemned discrimination and awards must ensure that it is seen to be wrong. On the other hand, awards should be restrained, as excessive awards could be seen as the way to untaxed riches. 72.3. Awards should bear some broad general similarity to the range of awards in personal injury cases. This should be done by reference to the whole range of such awards, rather than to any particular type of award. 72.4. In exercising discretion in assessing a sum, Tribunals should remind themselves of the value in everyday life of the sum they have in mind. This may be done by reference to purchasing power or by reference to earnings. 72.5. Tribunals should bear in mind the need for public respect for the level of awards made.[73]Further guidance was given on the range of awards by setting out three bands of compensation for injury to feelings by the Court of Appeal in the case of Vento v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police (2) [2003] IRLR 102. Those bands were as follows: 73.1. The top band is for the most serious cases, such as where there has been a lengthy campaign of discriminatory harassment on the ground of sex or race. 73.2. The middle band should be used for serious cases, which do not merit an award in the highest band. 73.3. Awards in the lower band are appropriate for less serious cases, such as where the act of discrimination is an isolated or one-off occurrence.[74]The thresholds of the bands are amended to reflect inflation each year, by Practice Direction issues each year by the Presidents of the Employment Tribunals for England and Wales and for Scotland. They apply in respect of proceedings issued on or after 6 April in the year in question. For cases presented during the year commencing 6 April 2022 the band thresholds are:• lower band (less serious cases): £990 to £9,900• middle band: £9,900 to £29,600• upper band (the most serious cases): £29,600 to £49,300[75]Compensation for financial losses that flow from the discrimination fall into 2 elements; losses to the date of the hearing, (which can usually be calculated with some precision) and future financial losses, (which invariably involve speculation as to what the future may hold for the claimant). Findings of fact relevant to remedy[76]Mr Darling’s net pay was £2,148.54 per month, or £495.81 per week. His gross pay was £32,000 per annum which is £2,666.66 per month, or £615.38 per week.[77]Although the Respondent company entered into Administration on 24 February 2024, Mr Darling’s evidence, which I accept, was that the business has continued, although the name of the Pub has changed and is now called Big J’s Smoke House (‘J’; being a reference to the previous owner of this assortment of companies) and the same employees continued to be employed at the Pub. I therefore find that notwithstanding the Administration, had Mr Darling continued in the Respondent’s employment, his employment would not have come to an end with the Administration and he would have remained in employment earning the same money with the new business owner. Calculations Loss of Earnings[78]Firstly, what Mr Darling would have earned to today’s date had he remained in the Respondent’s employment. The calculation runs from 25 October 2022 because of course he separately has an award for two weeks’ pay for notice pay so we add two weeks to 11 October 2022 and do our calculations from 25 October 2022.[79]In one year to 24 October 2023, he would have earnt net £25,782.48. There is a further 38 weeks to today’s date, at £495.81 net per week is £18,840.78.[80]Therefore Mr Darling would have earned in the Respondent’s employment had he not been subjected to discrimination, the sum of £44,623.26.[81]He was able to obtain further employment with a business called Lotus Tame, on a zero hours contract earning slightly less than he was with the Respondent. I total up his income with the new employer and deduct that from what he would have earned. This is a slightly tricky exercise and during an adjournment, Mrs Darling sent me some payslips and screen shots from the HMRC PAYE web site. The payslips confused me, frankly, but I could use the figures from the HMRC website. The figures I have to use are net not gross.[82]What I was able to discern from the information supplied is that to 31 March 2023, Mr Darling had earnt net £6,933.82 and to April 2024 he had earnt net £20,610.26. That is based on the information Mrs Darling kindly provided me with during the break. There are another two and a half months to bring us up to date, so I took the £20,610 and divided it by 12 to give me a monthly rate which is: £1,717.52. I then multiplied that by 2.5 months to now, which gives us a figure of: £4,293.80.[83]If we add those three figures: £6,933 + £20,610 + £4,293 = actual earnings to date of: £31,837.88.[84]If I deduct that from what he would have earnt: £44,623.26 - £31,837.88 = a loss to date of: £12,785.53.[85]Mr Darling told me that he has new employment, the earnings are similar and he expects that perhaps in three months’ time, at the end of his probation period, he might get a pay increase. Therefore, I make an assessment based on the evidence before me, taking a broad brush approach, (it is not an exact science) that losses will come to an end in three months’ time. I therefore need to add three more months’ of loss to the point where I think Mr Darling will be back to the equivalent of what he was earning with the Respondent.[86]The way that I did this, is I took his net monthly figure with the Respondent of £2,148.54 and deduct from that the figure of £1,717.52 that I calculated as the average monthly rate, to give me a monthly loss of: £428.02 which I multiply by three to get a figure of £1,285.06 three months’ future loss. Loss of Pension Contributions[87]Mrs Darling was able to explain to me that they estimate he would have received £64.40 in employer Pension contributions. There is from dismissal to date a total of 20.5 months and we are adding three more months for future loss as well.[88]We have therefore got 23.5 months x £64.40 Pension contributions Mr Darling should have received during the period of loss: £1,513.40.[89]The Pension contributions he has received in his new employment are: £46.10 x 23.5 = £1,083.35.[90]The difference, the loss of Pension contributions, is therefore £430.05. Total Award for Loss of Earnings[91]I add that to the Loss of Earnings calculations and arrive at the final figure of: £14,499.64. Injury to Feelings Award[92]I have regard to the contents of Mr Darling’s Schedule of Loss and in particular, that the events with the Respondents led him to attempt to take his own life. I can see from the medical evidence in the Bundle the serious effect on his well-being in the aftermath of his dismissal and the Respondent’s unsympathetic approach. I place this matter in the middle of the mid Vento Band. The mid Vento Band for claims issued after 6 April 2022 and before 6 April 2023 is £9,900 - £29,600.[93]I assess the Injury to Feelings Award at: £19,750.[94]If I add that to the Loss of Earnings Award of £14,499.64 we get a total of: £34,249.64. Other Awards Due[95]Notice Pay – 2 x £615.38 = £1,230.76 Gross, taxable in the hands of the Claimant.[96]Holiday Pay – based on my findings of fact Mr Darling had 4 days accrued due and untaken holiday. Again, using the Gross weekly pay figure of £123.08 x 4 = £492.31[97]Unpaid Wages – is in the figure as contained within the Schedule of Loss at £294.90.[98]If I pull all of that together by way of final summary, my award is as follows: Discrimination £ 34,249.64 Notice Pay £ 1,230.76 Holiday Pay £ 492.32 Wages £ 294.90 Total Award £ 36,267.62