Case 1303335/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Tomasz Jarecki v Like U CIO — 2023
- Case reference
- 1303335/2022
- Decision date
- 10 November 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Edmonds
- Panel members
- Mr N Howard, Mr D McIntosh
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Tomasz Jarecki
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case remotely at Birmingham by CVP on 6 and 7 July 2023 and 9 and 10 November 2023 before Employment Judge Edmonds with two lay members. It rejected the claimant's complaints of automatic unfair constructive dismissal and automatic unfair dismissal, finding both were not well-founded.
The tribunal also dealt with a complaint that the claimant had been subjected to detriment for making a protected disclosure. It recorded that this complaint would have succeeded on the merits, but it was not brought within the required time limits and was therefore dismissed as not well-founded.
The breach of contract complaint, which concerned notice pay, was found well-founded and succeeded. The tribunal did not determine the amount of compensation in this judgment and instead directed a separate remedy hearing.
The order for the remedy hearing records that compensation, if any, for notice pay would be considered later, including mitigation of loss through alternative employment and whether there had been a failure to follow the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures, with any compensation potentially adjusted by up to 25% for that reason.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The judgment describes this as a complaint of automatic unfair constructive dismissal; it was found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment describes this as a complaint of automatic unfair dismissal; it was found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal said the complaint of detriment for making a protected disclosure would have succeeded, but it was not brought within the required time limits and was therefore not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The breach of contract claim was in relation to notice pay. Liability succeeded, but compensation was left to a separate remedy hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.