Belarusian gymnastics coach unfairly fired after demanding £56,000 contract and pay slips

A Belarusian woman who came to England to work as a gymnastics coach was unfairly dismissed after asking for a written contract and payslip, which she was statutorily entitled to, a court has ruled.

South London Crown Court heard that Elena Bolotina, after reviewing her contract with her employer, Friendship Society, realized her start date was incorrect and she had been underpaid. When she spoke to her general manager about it, he told her there was “no need to worry.”

The court heard she was dismissed shortly afterwards for misconduct, allegedly criticizing the club and other instructors and encouraging students to leave.

However, employment judge Tueje ruled that Bolotina was not dismissed for misconduct, but was dismissed after repeatedly raising concerns about her pay slips.

Bolotina consequently received £56,202.

Background

Bolotina, of Belarusian descent, began volunteering with gymnastics group Friendship Society after arriving in the UK in September 2017 and continuing until September 2018. She was described during this time as “enthusiastic and eager to learn.”

British Gymnastics – whose respondent was an affiliated charity – agreed to sponsor her visa application so she could work as a coach on a three-year fixed-term contract.

After obtaining her visa, she began working full-time as a gymnastics coach from December 14, 2018 until her dismissal on December 1, 2019.

However, Galina Clark, the respondent’s executive director, claimed that Bolotina started as a volunteer in December 2018 and was not eligible for paid employee status until February 2019, and that Bolotina was not eligible as well as expenses and living expenses during this period. But the court heard Bolotina was unaware and assumed she would start as a paid employee on a three-year fixed-term contract.

In September 2019, the court heard that Bolotina was concerned his income was less than his agreed salary of £31,200 and requested his written contract.

When she received her written contract in early October, she said the start date was incorrectly listed as February 1. She contacted Clark to correct this, but Clark informed her there was “no cause for concern.”

The court was shown her pay slips for that nine month period, which showed she had received a total of £13,670.52. He said this equated to an annual salary of around £18,227.36, less than the agreed £31,200 per year.

In an email dated October 24, Bolotina asked Clark to make up the shortfall in his salary.

The respondent claimed that her salary would be £31,200 per annum based on a 40 hour working week. Otherwise, she was entitled to pro rata pay of £15 per hour for every hour worked, which was her salary.

Bolotina said “there was no discussion or agreement that she would be paid pro rata at £15 an hour”, according to the court report.

During this period, Clark and Bolotina’s relationship began to deteriorate. The respondent claimed that complaints were made that Bolotina spoke aggressively in Russian to a child who broke down in tears, while other complaints claimed that she “used force to stretch the gymnasts.”

Although Clark explained in her oral testimony that she was not aware of any children being injured as a result of Bolotina’s alleged excessive stretching, she said the resulting injuries could develop over the next several years.

Additionally, on October 18, Bolotina missed a session she was scheduled to teach due to a last-minute change of location. On October 24, Bolotina sent an email to Clark saying, “Galina, I am so sorry that we had some sort of misunderstanding. Let us strictly respect UK employment law.

Clark responded on October 25, in which she gave Bolotina a written warning for the missed session. Bolotina responded that she was “stunned” to receive the warning and did not accept it because she had not been adequately informed of the change of venue.

After Bolotina again addressed questions regarding his salary and start date, company directors – including Clark – discussed Bolotina at a November 28 meeting.

Administrators learned that Bolotina had verbally criticized fellow coaches with their parents and advised gymnasts to leave the club. They therefore approved the immediate dismissal of Bolotina for “serious misconduct”.

On December 1, she was dismissed by letter in which she was informed that she would be dismissed with immediate effect and that her visa would be withdrawn, meaning that she would have to return to Belarus.

Judge’s comments

Employment judge Tueje ruled in Bolotina’s favor that her start date had started in December 2018, instead of February 2019. In their email exchange before starting in December, Clark did not mention that Bolotina would start as as a volunteer and she was placed on the same rotation. like the other coaches who were not volunteers.

The court found that there had been little discussion regarding Bolotina’s salary before he took office and ruled that “in the absence of any express discussion, I consider that the annual salary of £31,200 stated in the rider was the salary payable.”

They concluded: “On the balance of probabilities, I find that the reason or primary reason Bolotina was terminated was because she requested a contract listing her start date as February 1, 2019 and pay slips for December 2018 and January 2019.”

They noted that Bolotina repeatedly requested copies of her contract between October and November and was fired a few weeks later.

The panel determined that Bolotina was unfairly dismissed for expressing her statutory rights and requesting her written terms of employment and payslips for December 2018 and January 2019, rather than for misconduct, as the Friendship Society claims.

While Clark claimed that Bolotina was fired because she allegedly undermined the respondent’s reputation by criticizing the club and other coaches, the judge noted that “the documentary evidence does not support this proposition.” The evidence provided shows that the parents removed their children from the club for “personal reasons”, rather than anything to do with Bolotina.

Tueje also highlighted “the vagueness of most of the defendant’s assertions and the absence of written complaints.”

Although allegations against Bolotina that she yelled at a student in Russian could be a sign of “bad coaching,” Tueje noted that the encounter occurred in Russian, meaning the witness did not know exactly what had upset the student.

Tueja added: “It is surprising that at the time the allegations were made, the respondent took no formal disciplinary action against Bolotina, such as reporting her to British Gymnastics or issuing a written warning.”

Bolotina was awarded £56,202, including compensation of £31,200 for unfair dismissal and four weeks’ gross pay.

Lawyer’s comments

Alan Lewis, employment partner at Constantine Law, said Human ressources: “Faced with a claim of this type, if the court finds that the reason or, if there is more than one, the main reason for the rejection was the assertion of a statutory right, it will decide in favor of the applicant.

“Unfortunately for the respondent, Employment Judge Tueje found that the documentary evidence did not support this argument; This is the first lesson for HR.

He added: “Employment judges will give little weight to testimony that is not supported by documentary evidence.

“It is recognized that witnesses can have poor memories and even be confused. The same problems do not apply to contemporary documents.

Lewis advised employees to have credible documentary evidence to support reasons for termination when terminating employees.

He said: “Treat employees’ assertion of their statutory rights, such as requesting a contract of employment, declaration of employment or requesting a payslip, very seriously.

“There is nothing inherently wrong with employees making these claims, but alarm bells should start ringing when the employer is considering terminating employment.”