A wife has won nearly £10,000 after suing her husband for sacking her after he had an affair with mate chef at the national park pub they co-owned in Derbyshire.
Jacqueline Herling confronted Stefan after discovering CCTV footage that proved his illicit relationship with the employee.
In a heated argument, the mother-of-two stated that she ‘would not set foot in the pub again’ and reduced her work to ‘occasional duties’, according to an employment tribunal.
Mrs Herling continued to receive her salary for another four months before her head chef husband issued her a p45 without informing her.
She has now successfully sued her partner of 19 years and the family company that owns the pub for unfair and wrongful dismissal, unauthorised pay deductions, and victimisation, receiving £9,676 in compensation.
The tribunal, held in Manchester, heard that Mrs Herling began working part-time behind the bar at The Beehive Inn in Combs, Derbyshire, in 2003.
The pub is located in the heart of the Peak District and boasts ‘beautiful views’ and a ‘friendly and welcoming atmosphere’.
In addition to serving a menu made from local produce, there is a farm shop on site that sells goods from nearby farms.
‘[Mrs Herling] pursued her claim against what had been the family business, centred on a very successful pub where [she] used to work, as well as against her estranged husband,’ the tribunal heard.
The hearing was told that the couple met in 2005, had their first child in 2007, and married the following year.
The family lived above the pub and ran it together, with Mrs Herling earning a ‘nominal’ tax-free salary of £9,000 per year.
‘On May 30, 2022, [she] confronted [Mr Herling] because she discovered he was having an affair with the sous-chef,’ the tribunal heard.
‘[He] initially denied it, but she explained that she had seen CCTV footage. There was a dispute. The gist of what [Mrs Herling] said was that she had had enough of the pub and would never return.
‘However, she did not leave. The children went to stay with relatives for a short time while the couple talked, as they had that night. In fact, Mrs. Herling never left the pub, and the children quickly returned.
‘Nonetheless, from then on, [she] did not work in the pub and only performed occasional duties that benefited the business, such as chopping logs, mowing the lawns, and, on one occasion, a trip to Costco for various supplies.
The tribunal heard that Mr Herling continued to pay her monthly salary of £758 and advised her to ‘think about things’ before making any ‘long-term decisions’.
Mrs. Herling’s divorce proceedings began in July 2022.
At some point that summer, Mr. Herling spoke with the company’s accountant, who informed him that his wife could not be paid if she no longer worked for the pub.
On this advice, the company issued Mrs. Herling a P45 at the beginning of October, but her husband only informed her about it at the beginning of November, when she inquired as to why she hadn’t received the previous month’s pay.
Mrs. Herling was dismissed in November after learning about the P45, according to the tribunal, and she is owed a month’s pay for the time when the couple ‘could and should have talked about arrangements further’.
Mr. Herling and the family business defended the claim, claiming that his wife ‘resigned’ due to her actions on May 30, 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 on or carried out,’ the panel stated.
‘[She] did not leave or move out, and she had nothing to do with the business after that, 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 consider things. He didn’t want her to leave and kept the position open.
‘In those circumstances, the Tribunal considered that [Mr. Herling] did not consider [his wife] to have resigned.’
Employment Judge Marion Batten upheld her claim for unfair dismissal, saying: “[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 may have resulted in [the couple] making alternative arrangements for [her] employment, such as [Mr. Herling] offering [her] the opportunity to return to work in the business on revised terms and conditions.
‘So, while the tribunal considered that procedures would have made little difference to the situation [the couple] were in, the tribunal also considered that there could and should have been at least a month to talk and think before the finality of termination of employment was implemented.
‘The most likely outcome was that [Mrs Herling] would not have returned to work, but [Mr Herling] should have attempted to reach a compromise at that point.
‘In light of all of the foregoing, the tribunal determined that [Mrs Herling] was unfairly dismissed, but that any compensation should be limited to a month’s pay to cover the period during which the parties could and should have discussed arrangements further.