Case 1309588/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Wyrwa v Vandemoortele Worcester (a UK establishment of Vamix NV) — 2022
- Case reference
- 1309588/2020
- Decision date
- 11 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Faulkner
- Panel members
- Dr G Hammersley, Mrs D Hill
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Wyrwa
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard by Employment Judge Faulkner sitting with Dr G Hammersley and Mrs D Hill at Midlands West and then remotely by Cloud Video Platform on 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 July 2022 and 8, 9 and 10 August 2022. The Claimant, Mr R Wyrwa, brought complaints of unauthorised deduction from wages, detriment for making protected disclosures, redundancy payment, and unfair dismissal against Vandemoortele Worcester (a UK establishment of Vamix NV).
The Tribunal rejected the wages complaint, finding that the Respondent did not make an unauthorised deduction from the Claimant’s wages. It also rejected the whistleblowing detriment complaints, finding that the Respondent did not subject the Claimant to any detriment on the ground that he had made protected disclosures. The redundancy claim also failed because the Tribunal found the Claimant was not dismissed by reason of redundancy and therefore did not have a statutory redundancy payment entitlement.
The unfair dismissal complaint succeeded. The Tribunal held that the Claimant was unfairly dismissed and therefore that complaint was well-founded. The judgment did not determine remedy; it stated that remedy would be dealt with at a further hearing, to be notified to the parties.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The Tribunal found the Respondent did not make an unauthorised deduction from wages, so the complaint was not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The Tribunal found the Respondent did not subject the Claimant to a detriment on the ground that he had made protected disclosures, so the whistleblowing detriment complaints were not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | The Tribunal found the Claimant was not dismissed by reason of redundancy and therefore did not have a right to a statutory redundancy payment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The Tribunal found the Claimant was unfairly dismissed and upheld the unfair dismissal complaint. Remedy was listed for a further hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 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.