Mr J Jamaldin v GKF Ltd — 2020

The Claimant, a sample machinist, was found to have been continuously employed for the purposes of the claim from 19 January 2015. The tribunal preferred his evidence about the events of 9 July 2018, including that he was told he had no job after a disagreement about work instructions, and found that he was dismissed rather than having resigned. The Respondent had not produced a contemporaneous dismissal letter or a reliable account of the incident, and the judge found the late-disclosed contract document was not genuine.

On unfair dismissal, the tribunal held that the Respondent had made no attempt to follow any disciplinary procedure and had not shown a fair reason for dismissal under s.98(2) ERA 1996. It therefore upheld the unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal found no contributory fault by the Claimant and no basis for a Polkey reduction. It also held that the Respondent had failed to comply with the ACAS Code and increased the compensatory award by 25% under s.207A TULCRA, and found a breach of the duty to provide written particulars under s.1 ERA 1996 so that a s.38 Employment Act 2002 award was also required.

The money claims were dismissed. The tribunal was not satisfied that holiday pay had been unpaid or that the Claimant had been refused paid leave, noting that he had not identified any specific occasion when leave was refused and that the Respondent's bank records showed regular payments. It also rejected the allegations that he had been required to repay tax and national insurance or work unpaid overtime, because those allegations were not proved on the evidence.

No final monetary figure was set in this judgment. Remedy was adjourned to a separate one-day hearing, and the tribunal directed the Claimant to provide a schedule of loss and both parties to prepare further remedy documents.