Claimant v Glenthorne Care Services Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the respondent failed to make reasonable adjustments for the claimant's disability as required under the Equality Act 2010. Damages are to be assessed at a future remedy hearing.
The tribunal found the claimant was automatically unfairly dismissed on the basis of asserting her statutory right to be paid holiday pay under the Working Time Regulations. Damages are to be assessed at a future remedy hearing.
The tribunal found the dismissal was wrongful, with the parties having agreed the notice pay figure of £229.24.
The respondent accepted this claim and the parties agreed a figure of £75 representing unlawful deductions from wages.
The tribunal found the claim for unpaid holiday pay was well-founded, with the parties having agreed the sum of £864.82.
Facts
Mrs Kaur worked for Glenthorne Care Services Limited, a care services provider. She had a disability requiring reasonable adjustments. She asserted her statutory right to holiday pay under the Working Time Regulations and was subsequently dismissed. The respondent also made unlawful deductions from her wages and failed to pay holiday pay owed.
Decision
The tribunal found in favour of the claimant on all claims: failure to make reasonable adjustments, automatic unfair dismissal for asserting statutory rights, wrongful dismissal, unlawful deduction of wages, and holiday pay. Immediate awards totalling £1,169.06 were ordered for notice pay, holiday pay and unpaid wages. Damages for the discrimination and unfair dismissal claims are to be assessed at a remedy hearing.
Practical note
Dismissing an employee for asserting their statutory right to holiday pay constitutes automatic unfair dismissal, and employers in the care sector must ensure they make reasonable adjustments for disabled employees and comply with basic payment obligations.
Award breakdown
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 1305590/2024
- Decision date
- 19 December 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 4
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- healthcare
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister