A woman has won almost £10,000 after suing her husband for firing her after he had an affair with a fellow chef at the National Park Pub they ran together in Derbyshire.
Jacqueline Herling confronted wife Stefan after her discovery of camera images that showed his illicit relationship with the employee.
In a heated row, the mother-of-two said she would ‘not set foot in the pub again’ and reduced her work to ‘occasional tasks’, an employment tribunal heard.
Mrs Herling continued to receive her salary for another four months until her chef husband gave her a p45 without telling her.
She has now successfully sued her partner of 19 years and the family business that owned the pub for unfair and wrongful dismissal, wrongful wage deductions and victimisation, and has been awarded £9,676 in damages.
The tribunal, held in Manchester, heard that Ms Herling began working part-time behind the bar at The Beehive Inn in Combs, Derbs, in 2003.
Located in the heart of the Peak District, the pub boasts ‘stunning views’ and ‘a friendly and welcoming atmosphere’.
A woman has won almost £10,000 after suing her husband for firing her after he had an affair with a fellow chef at the national park pub they ran together. Jacqueline Herling (right) confronted wife Stefan (left) after her discovery of camera surveillance
In a heated row, the mother-of-two said she would ‘not set foot in the pub again’ and reduced her work to ‘occasional tasks’, an employment tribunal heard
As well as offering a menu made from local produce, there is also a farm shop on site selling goods from nearby farms.
“(Mrs Herling) continued her claim against what was a family business, centered on a highly successful pub where (she) worked, and also against her estranged husband,” the tribunal heard.
The hearing was told the couple got together in 2005, had their first child in 2007 and married the following year.
The family lived above the pub and ran the venue with Mrs Herling, who was paid a ‘nominal’ tax-free salary of £9,000 a year.
“On May 30, 2022, (she) confronted (Mr Herling) because she had discovered he was 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 line. The gist of what Mrs Herling said was that she wanted nothing more to do with the pub and that she would not set foot in the pub again.
“(She) didn’t leave, though. The children stayed with relatives for a short period of time while the couple talked, as they did that evening. In fact (Mrs Herling) never left the pub and the children soon returned.
‘Nevertheless, from then on (she) did not work in the pub and did at most incidental work that benefited the business, such as chopping logs, mowing the lawns and on one occasion a visit to Costco for various supplies.
The tribunal heard that Mr Herling continued to pay her salary of £758 a month and urged her to ‘think things through’ before making ‘long-term decisions’.
The tribunal, held in Manchester, heard that Ms Herling began working part-time behind the bar at The Beehive Inn in Combs, Derbs, in 2003 (pictured). Located in the heart of the Peak District, the pub boasts of its ‘stunning views’ and ‘friendly and welcoming atmosphere’
In July 2022, Ms. Herling began divorce proceedings.
At some point that summer, Mr. Herling spoke to the company’s accountant, who said his wife could not receive a salary if she no longer worked for the pub.
Based on this advice, the company gave Mrs Herling a P45 in early October, but her husband did not tell her about it until early November when she asked why she had not received the previous month’s wages.
The tribunal ruled that Mrs Herling was dismissed in November when she was told about the P45 and that she was owed a month’s wages for the time the couple ‘could and should have discussed further arrangements’.
In defense of the claim, Mr Herling and the family business argued that his wife ‘resigned’ due to her conduct on May 30, 2022, when she discovered the affair.
The tribunal disagreed.
“(Ms Herling) was very upset that evening and a number of things were said/suggested in the heat of the moment but no action was taken or implemented,” the panel said.
“(She) did not leave or move and has had nothing to do with the case from that point on, even though she reduced the tasks she undertook to the bare minimum while the parties talked.
‘(Mr Herling’s) evidence was that he wanted to give (his wife) time to think about things. He didn’t want her to leave and left the position open.
‘In these circumstances, the Tribunal was of the opinion that (Mr Herling) did not consider at the time that (his wife) had resigned.’
Upholding her claim of unfair dismissal, employment judge Marion Batten said: ‘(Mr and Mrs Herling) continued to live next door to each other in the pub and chatted.
‘Discussions about (Mrs Herling’s) position and the accountant’s advice may have led (the couple) to alternative arrangements for (her) employment. For example, it may have resulted in (Mr Herling) offering (her) the opportunity to return to work in the company under revised conditions.
‘So whilst the tribunal was of the view that the procedures would have made little difference to the situation in which the couple found themselves, the tribunal was nonetheless of the view that there could and should have been at least a month of discussion and reflection before the final decision was made. of the termination of the employment contract has come into effect.
‘The likely outcome may have been that (Ms Herling) would not have ultimately returned to work, but (Mr Herling) should have tried to reach a compromise at that stage.
‘In light of all the above, the tribunal found that (Ms Herling) had been unfairly dismissed, but that any compensation should be limited to one month’s wages, to cover the period during which the parties could and should have discussed further arrangements.’