I was made redundant by my husband after catching him having an AFFAIR at work on CCTV – now I’ve made £10,000 off him

A wife claimed she was sacked by her husband after catching him on CCTV having an affair at work – but she has now made £10,000 off him.

Jacqueline Herling and her husband Stefan previously ran a “very successful” pub in a national park together.

3

3

3

Mrs. Herling caught her husband, the head chef, having an illicit relationship with another employee, and confronted him.

In a heated argument she “wouldn’t set foot in the pub again” and reduced her work to “casual duties”, an employment tribunal was told.

She then continued to receive her salary for another four months until her husband, a chef, issued her a P45 without telling her.

The mother of two refused to back down and took Stefan to court.

She has now successfully sued her partner of 19 years and the family business which owns the pub for unfair and unjustified dismissal, unauthorized salary deductions and victimisation.

She received £9,676 in compensation.

The court, held in Manchester, heard that Ms Herling began working part-time behind the bar at the Beehive Inn in Combs, Derbs, in 2003.

The pub, nestled in the heart of the Peak District, offers “beautiful views” and a “friendly, welcoming atmosphere”.

It offers a menu based on local produce as well as an on-site farm shop selling produce from neighboring farms.

Ms Herling “continued her claim against what had been the family business, centered on a very successful pub in which (she) worked, as well as against her ex-husband”, the court heard.

The hearing was told that the couple got together in 2005, had their first child in 2007, before marrying the following year.

The family lived above the pub and ran the venue together, with Mrs Herling being paid a “token” sum. tax free salary of £9,000 per year.

The court was told: “On May 30, 2022, (she) confronted (Mr Herling) because she had discovered he was having an affair with the deputy chief.

“(He) initially denied it, until (she) explained that she had seen CCTV footage. There was an argument. The gist of what was said by ( Mrs Herling) was that she wanted nothing more to do with the pub and would never set foot there again.

“However, (she) did not leave. The children went to relatives for a short time while the couple talked, as they did that evening. In fact. (Ms. Herling) did not never left the pub and the children quickly returned.

“Nevertheless, from that point on, (she) no longer worked at the pub and, at most, carried out occasional tasks which benefited the business, for example cutting logs, mowing the lawn and, on one occasion , go to Costco for various supplies.

The court heard Mr Herling continued to pay her salary of £758 a month and urged her to “think things through” before making “long-term decisions”.

In July 2022, Ms. Herling began divorce proceedings.

At some point, summer Mr Herling spoke to the company’s accountant who said his wife would not be able to receive a salary if she no longer worked for the pub.

On this advice, the company issued Ms Herling a P45 in early October, but her husband only told her about it in early November when she asked why she had not received the previous month’s salary.

The court found that Ms Herling was dismissed in November when she was told about the P45 and was owed a month’s salary for the time the couple “could and should have discussed the arrangements further”.

To defend this claim, Mr. Herling and the family business argued that his wife “resigned” due to his conduct on May 30, 2022, when she discovered the affair. The court disagreed.

“(Ms 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 or implemented,” said the panel.

“(She) did not leave or move and she had nothing to do with the business from that point on, although she reduced the tasks she undertook to the bare minimum , while the parties spoke.

“(Mr Herling’s) evidence was that he wanted to give (his wife) time to think. He didn’t want her to leave and left the position open.

“In these circumstances, the Court considered that (Mr Herling) did not consider, at the time, (his wife) to have resigned.”

Upholding his unfair dismissal claim, employment judge Marion Batten said: “(Mr and Mrs Herling) continued to live side by side in the pub and conversed.

“Discussions about (Ms Herling’s) position and advice from the accountant could have led (the couple) to find alternative arrangements for (her) employment, for example it could have led to (Mr Herling) ( him) offer the possibility of returning to work in the company according to revised terms.

“Thus, although the court found that the procedures would have made little difference to the situation in which (the couple) found themselves, the court nonetheless found that it could and should have taken at least a month to talk and think before the termination of employment has been implemented.

“The likely outcome might have been that (Ms Herling) would ultimately not have returned to work, but (Mr Herling) should have tried, at that stage, to reach a compromise.

“In light of all of the above, the court found that (Ms Herling) had been unfairly dismissed but that any compensation should be limited to one month’s salary, to cover the period during which the parties could and should have discussed further arrangements.”