Case 1306540/2020 · Employment Tribunal

Kenneth Fellows v Independent Slitters Limited — 2022

Case reference: 1306540/2020
Decision date: 10 March 2022
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Gilroy QC
Venue: Birmingham

Indexed: 22 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Kenneth Fellows

Respondent

Independent Slitters Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The Tribunal held that Kenneth Fellows was unfairly dismissed by Independent Slitters Limited. It rejected any Polkey reduction, recording that there was no basis for finding a prospect that he would have been dismissed in any event had a fair procedure been followed.

The Tribunal also found that Mr Fellows did not contribute to his dismissal within the meaning of s.123(6) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. In calculating compensation, it applied a 15% uplift because of the Respondent's failure to follow the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures 2009.

By consent, the Respondent was ordered to pay a basic award of £11,567.00 and a compensatory award of £7,873.61, giving a subtotal of £19,440.61. After the 15% ACAS uplift of £2,916.09, the total award was £22,356.70. The Tribunal said the Recoupment Regulations applied; the prescribed element was £1,157.74 for the period 30 June 2020 to 25 October 2020, and the excess over the prescribed element was £21,198.96.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	The Tribunal found the Claimant was unfairly dismissed. It also found there should be no Polkey reduction, that the Claimant did not contribute to his dismissal within s.123(6) ERA 1996, and applied a 15% uplift for the Respondent's failure to follow the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures 2009.	Upheld	—	£22,357

Remedy

Monetary award

Total award: £22,357; across all upheld claims
Basic award: £11,567; statutory, unfair dismissal
Compensatory award: £7,874; compensatory remedy recorded

Legal tests applied

4 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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.