Claimant v Wellingtons Antiques Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The Tribunal upheld the Claimant's claim for a £2,000 commission payment that had been agreed between the Claimant and the Second Respondent. The Respondents did not successfully challenge this in the remedy hearing.
The First Respondent failed to provide the Claimant with an employer pension contribution throughout her employment, which was a breach of contract. The Claimant was entitled to 3% employer contributions under auto-enrolment.
The Claimant was dismissed without notice and was therefore entitled to one week of pay as notice pay.
The Tribunal found two acts of victimisation: putting the Claimant on garden leave in January 2023 and failing to reinstate her from garden leave in March 2023, thus ending her employment. The Second Respondent admitted he considered the relationship had broken down after she accused him of being racist and sexist.
The Tribunal found one act of harassment related to sex took place in November 2021, involving comments made by the Second Respondent. This was a less serious claim compared to the victimisation claims.
The Claimant was owed wages which were only paid when the Tribunal ordered them to be paid. This claim provided the jurisdictional basis for the award relating to failure to provide written particulars under the Employment Act 2002.
Facts
Mrs Pereira worked for Wellingtons Antiques Limited from October 2021 to March 2023. She was not provided with a contract of employment, was paid irregularly and in cash, and was not offered a pension despite requesting these basic employment rights. In January 2023, after pursuing a wages claim through solicitors, she was placed on garden leave. When she submitted a grievance alleging discrimination, the Respondents ignored it and did not reinstate her from garden leave, effectively ending her employment. On 11 March 2023, the Claimant attended A&E after self-harming in distress and subsequently required a year of weekly therapy sessions.
Decision
The Tribunal upheld claims of victimisation (placing on garden leave and failure to reinstate), harassment related to sex, breach of contract (unpaid commission and pension contributions), wrongful dismissal, and unlawful deduction of wages. The Claimant was awarded £56,022.34 including loss of earnings for 102 weeks (with a 15% ACAS uplift), £18,400 for injury to feelings (incorporating impact on mental health and the 15% uplift), interest, and an award for failure to provide written particulars. The Respondents' argument that the Claimant would have been dismissed within 4 weeks in any event was rejected due to lack of evidence.
Practical note
Employers who fail to provide basic employment rights and then dismiss or constructively dismiss an employee after they raise concerns about treatment face substantial compensation, particularly where the ACAS Code is breached and the impact on the claimant's mental health is severe.
Award breakdown
Vento band: middle
Award equivalent: 216.8 weeks' gross pay
Adjustments
The Respondent unreasonably failed to comply with paragraphs 33, 40 and 41 of the ACAS Code: the grievance was ignored, the Claimant was not invited to a grievance meeting, was not given a grievance outcome, and was not offered a right of appeal. Despite corresponding through solicitors at the time, the Respondents took no steps to deal with the grievance properly, which caused the Claimant considerable additional distress.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3303997/2023
- Decision date
- 25 February 2025
- Hearing type
- remedy
- Hearing days
- 5
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- retail
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Salary band
- Under £15,000
- Service
- 1 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister