Jacqueline Herling succesfully sued her husband after catching him having an affair on CCTV with the sous-chef of a pub the pair worked at – and was awarded almost £10,000
A cheating husband who sacked his wife after she caught his illicit relationship with an employee on CCTV was ordered to pay up almost £10,000 in compensation.
Jacqueline Herling sued her husband after catching him in the act on CCTV with the sous-chef of a pub the pair worked at. The mum-of-two confronted spouse Stefan and said in a heated row that she “would not set foot in the pub again”, reducing her work to “occasional duties”, an employment tribunal heard.
For the next four months, her salary was paid to her as normal, until her head chef husband issued her with a p45 without telling her. Mrs Herling has since been awarded £9,676 after successfully suing her ex-partner of 19 years – and the family company that owned the pub – for unfair and wrongful dismissal, unauthorised pay deductions and victimisation.
The tribunal, held in Manchester, heard that Mrs Herling started working part-time behind the bar at The Beehive Inn in Combs, Derbyshire, in 2003. The pair got together in 2005, had their first child in 2007 and married the following year before moving into a property above the pub and running it together, with Mrs Herling paid a “nominal” tax-free salary of £9,000 a year.
“On 30 May 2022, [she] confronted [Mr Herling] because she had discovered he had been having an affair with the sous-chef,” the tribunal was told. [He] initially denied it, until [she] explained that she had seen CCTV footage. There was a row. The gist of what was said by [Mrs Herling] was that she wanted nothing more to do with the pub and that she would not set foot in the pub again.
“However, [she] did not leave. The children went to stay with relatives for a short period whilst the couple talked, as they did that night. In fact. [Mrs Herling] never moved out of the pub and the children soon returned. Nevertheless, from then on, [she] did not work in the pub and, at most, performed occasional duties which benefitted the business, for example chopping logs, mowing the lawns and on one occasion, a visit to Costco for various supplies.
Mr Herling continued to pay her salary of £758 a month but urged her to “think about things” before making any “long-term decisions”.
After Mrs Herling began divorce proceedings in July 2022, Mr Herling spoke to the business’ accountant who said his wife could not be paid if she was no longer working for the pub.
On this advice, the company issued Mrs Herling a P45 at the start of October, but her husband only told her about this at the start of November when she asked why she hadn’t received the previous month’s pay. Mr Herling and the family business argued that his wife “resigned” by her conduct on 30 May 2022, when she discovered the affair.
The tribunal disagreed. “[Mrs Herling] was very upset that night, and a number of things were said/suggested, in the heat of the moment, none of which were acted upon nor carried through,” the panel said.
“[She] did not leave or move out and she did not have nothing to do with the business from then on, albeit that she reduced the tasks she undertook to the bare minimum, whilst the parties talked. [Mr Herling’s] evidence was that he wanted to give [his wife] time to think about things. He did not want her to leave and left the position open. In those circumstances, the Tribunal considered that [Mr Herling] did not, at the time, consider [his wife] to have resigned.”
Upholding her claim of unfair dismissal, Employment Judge Marion Batten said: “[Mr and Mrs Herling] continued to live side by side in the pub and did converse. Discussions about [Mrs Herling’s] position and the accountant’s advice might have resulted in [the couple] coming to some alternative arrangements for [her] employment, for example, it may have led to [Mr Herling] offering [her] the opportunity to return to work in the business on revised terms and conditions.
“So, whilst the tribunal considered that procedures would have made little difference to the situation [the couple] were in, nevertheless, the tribunal considered that there could and should have been at least a month taken, to talk and think, before the finality of termination of employment was put into effect. The likely outcome may have been that [Mrs Herling] would not ultimately have returned to work, but [Mr Herling] should have tried, at that stage to reach a compromise.
“In light of all the above, the tribunal found that [Mrs Herling] was unfairly dismissed but that any compensation should be limited to a month’s pay, to cover the period in which the parties could and should have talked about arrangements further.”
