Case 1403650/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Stachura v Hydro Extrusion UK Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 1403650/2019
- Decision date
- 19 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Maxwell Representation
- Venue
- Bristol
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Stachura
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr D Stachura was employed by Hydro Extrusion UK Ltd from 26 May 2009 until his dismissal on 2 July 2019, working as a forklift truck driver. The tribunal found that on 17 June 2019 he drove the forklift truck without hands on the steering wheel through a pedestrian area. CCTV was shown to him shortly afterwards, and at the hearing he accepted that the footage showed him driving hands free. The tribunal accepted that this created a clear health and safety risk in circumstances where the vehicle was heavy and colleagues were nearby.
Applying section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, BHS v Burchell, Iceland Frozen Foods v Jones and Sainsbury's Supermarkets v Hitt, the tribunal held that the respondent genuinely believed the claimant was guilty of misconduct, that the belief was based on reasonable grounds, and that the investigation was reasonable. It also found that the disciplinary process was fair, including the early opportunity to view and comment on the CCTV, the disciplinary hearing, and the opportunity to be accompanied. The tribunal concluded that dismissal fell within the band of reasonable responses.
In its alternative breach of contract reasoning, the tribunal found that the claimant's conduct amounted to gross misconduct. It held that he did not maintain proper control of a potentially dangerous vehicle, that the risk to health and safety was obvious, and that the respondent was entitled to summarily dismiss him. The unfair dismissal claim and the notice pay breach of contract claim were therefore dismissed.
On sick pay, the tribunal construed the offer letter and the absence management procedure as giving a contractual entitlement to sick pay in accordance with the scheme in force. It held that the respondent had not proved that the site-wide 3% absence trigger had been met, so it was not entitled to pay SSP only on that basis. The tribunal found the claimant should have received contractual sick pay rather than SSP for the relevant period and, on the parties' agreed figures, awarded £820.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed. The tribunal found the respondent had a genuine belief that the claimant committed misconduct, that the investigation and procedure were reasonable, and that dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Claim for notice pay. The judgment states this claim was not well-founded and dismissed; the reasons do not separately analyse notice pay in detail. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for the difference between contractual sick pay and SSP. The tribunal held the claimant was contractually entitled to sick pay under the scheme in force and that the respondent had not proved the 3% site absence trigger was met. | Upheld | — | £820 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £820
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
6 references- s.98(1)(a) ERA 1996
- s.98(1)(b) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- BHS v Burchell
- Iceland Frozen Foods v Jones
- Sainsbury's Supermarkets v Hitt
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.