Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL 58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS At the Tribunal On 16 July 1997 Before
JUDGE J HULL QC : This is an appeal to us by East Park Physically Handicapped Centre at Kilgetty, Dyfed. The Respondent to the appeal is Mrs Pauline Bedford, who was employed as a care assistant by the Centre from 20 January 1993 until she was finally dismissed on 12 May 1995, having been off sick for some time.
She presented her complaint to the Industrial Tribunal on 15 May 1995 complaining of unfair dismissal and claiming compensation. She said that her pay was �256.20 per calendar month. That was not in contest. The Respondent there, the Appellant to us, the Centre, agreed that that was right and that comes to �59.12 per week, if you work it out correctly because the correct sum of course, if that is the pay per month, is to multiply by 12 and divide by 52 to get the amount per week and we have all done that sum and it comes to �59.12.
The Tribunal held unanimously that the claim for sick pay under the Wages Act was dismissed and they then awarded sums for compensation. The basic award, they said, should be �192.15 and there should be a compensatory award of �1,008 and notice pay in the sum of �128.10. They then gave their reasons.
First of all, dealing with the question of sick pay the Tribunal said, at paragraph 1:
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.