Claimant v Balance Support CIO
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the dismissal was not unfair. The tribunal heard evidence and submissions over two days and concluded the respondent had acted fairly in dismissing the claimant. The claim was not well founded and was dismissed.
The tribunal found that the respondent had breached its contractual obligations by failing to make student loan deductions from the claimant's salary, which resulted in the claimant incurring late payment charges of £101.75. The respondent was ordered to reimburse this amount to the claimant.
The claimant alleged breach of contract in relation to the provision of training. The tribunal found this claim was not well founded and dismissed it, concluding the respondent had not breached any contractual obligation to provide training.
The claimant claimed she had been unlawfully denied bereavement pay. The tribunal found this claim was not well founded and dismissed it, concluding the claimant was not entitled to the bereavement pay claimed or that proper deductions had been made.
Facts
Ms Okpah brought claims against her former employer, Balance Support CIO, a charity. She alleged unfair dismissal and various contractual breaches including failure to provide training and unlawful deduction of bereavement pay. The respondent failed to make student loan deductions from her salary, resulting in late payment charges. The hearing took place over two days by video.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim, finding the dismissal was fair. The tribunal also dismissed claims for breach of contract regarding training and unlawful deduction of bereavement pay. However, the tribunal upheld a breach of contract claim for the respondent's failure to deduct student loan payments, ordering compensation of £101.75 for late payment charges incurred.
Practical note
Employers can be liable for financial consequences to employees resulting from administrative failures such as failing to make required student loan deductions, even where other aspects of their dismissal process are fair.
Award breakdown
Case details
- Case number
- 6005374/2024
- Decision date
- 29 April 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- charity
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No