Ms Sullivan v Solent Composite Systems Ltd and Solent Composite Solutions Ltd: 1400771/2019
Employment Tribunal
Published on 28 February 2020, 10:28
- Summary
- Employment Tribunal decision.
- categories
-
breach-of-contract equal-pay-act sex-discrimination unlawful-deduction-from-wages working-time-regulations
- country
- england-and-wales
- decision date
- 2020-02-07
Official Documents
-
Ms Sullivan v Solent Composite Systems Ltd and Solent Composite Solutions Ltd: 1400771/2019 - Judgment
Change History
-
First published.
Full Decision Text
Raw text extracted from the official documents.
Case Number: 1400771/2019
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant Respondent
Ms Sullivan v 1. Solent Composite Systems
Ltd
2. Solent Composite Solutions
Ltd
Heard at: Southampton On: 7 February 2020
Before: Employment Judge Rayner
Appearances
For the Claimant: in person
For the Respondent: Not attending
JUDGMENT
1. The claimants work was equal to that of her comparator Mr C Bernson in that it
was like work.
2. The first Respondent will pay the claimant the total sum of £9113.24,
comprising £9008.87 net as compensation for past pay inequality and the sum
of £104.37 for expenses of copying and associated costs incurred in bringing
the claim.
3. The claimants claim against the 2nd Respondent is dismissed.
____________________________
Employment Judge Rayner
Dated: 7 February 2020
…………………………………….
Case Number: 1400771/2019
2
Note: online publication of judgments and reasons
The ET is required to maintain a register of all judgments and written reasons. The
register must be accessible to the public. It has recently been moved online. All
judgments and reasons since February 2017 are now available at:
https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions.
The ET has no power to refuse to place a judgment or reasons on the online
register, or to remove a judgment or reasons from the register once they have been
placed there. If you consider that these documents should be anonymised in any
way prior to publication, you will need to apply to the ET for an order to that effect
under Rule 50 of the ET's Rules of Procedure. Such an application would need to
be copied to all other parties for comment and it would be carefully scrutinised by a
judge (where appropriate, with panel members) before deciding whether (and to
what extent) anonymity should be granted to a party or a witness
Related Parties
Search the database for other cases involving these individuals or companies.