Case 1404900/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Andrzej Glinowiecki v Eclipse Hotels (Bristol) Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 1404900/2021
- Decision date
- 10 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Atkins
- Venue
- Bristol via CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Andrzej Glinowiecki
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal rejected the respondent's argument that the claim was out of time, holding that it was presented within the ACAS-adjusted limitation period and, alternatively, that time would have been extended in any event. It found that Mr Andrzej Glinowiecki had been employed by Eclipse Hotels (Bristol) Ltd as a commis chef on a zero-hours contract from 23 March 2015, that old contact details had been used in correspondence, and that by 10 March 2021 he knew his furlough had ended, he was on paid holiday until 24 March 2021, and he was required to return to work from 25 March 2021.
The tribunal accepted that some letters, including the August 2020 letter and the April and May 2021 disciplinary correspondence, were not received because out-of-date contact details were used. It nevertheless found that the claimant knew he was expected back, that shifts had been allocated to him, that he did not attend work, and that he did not contact the respondent to explain his absence. On that basis it found that he was dismissed on 5 May 2021 for conduct, that there was no evidence of redundancy, and that the unfair dismissal claim failed because the dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses and the process was not unfair overall.
The notice pay claim succeeded. The tribunal found that the claimant had over six years' service and was contractually entitled to 6 weeks' notice under clause 15.2, but the dismissal letter gave only 4 weeks and no notice payment was made. Using payslips from November 2019 to August 2020, it calculated average weekly pay at £281.23 and awarded £1,687.38 gross.
The holiday pay claim failed because the 2020/21 leave year had already been dealt with in the 10 March 2021 letter, which stated that 27 days' leave had been paid and that additional leave was granted to 24 March 2021. The tribunal also found that no hours were worked between 1 April 2021 and dismissal, so no leave accrued in the 2021/22 leave year. The arrears of pay claim failed because the claimant had not worked after furlough ended in August 2020 and therefore had not accrued any further pay.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal rejected the respondent's limitation objection, then found the dismissal on 5 May 2021 was for conduct and was not unfair under section 98 ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found there was no evidence that the respondent ceased trading or that the requirement for work diminished; the termination was not by reason of redundancy. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The notice pay claim succeeded. The tribunal found the claimant had over six years' service and was entitled to 6 weeks' notice under clause 15.2, but had been given only 4 weeks and paid nothing. It calculated average weekly pay at £281.23 and awarded £1,687.38 gross. | Upheld | — | £1,687 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found 2020/21 holiday had already been paid and additional leave was granted to 24 March 2021. No hours were worked between 1 April 2021 and dismissal, so no leave accrued in 2021/22. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the claimant had not worked after furlough ended in August 2020 and therefore had not accrued any further pay for the period claimed. | Dismissed |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,687
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
8 references- s.98(1) ERA 1996
- s.98(2)(b) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- Burchell test
- Iceland Frozen Foods Ltd v Jones
- Taylor v OCS Group Ltd
- Sainsbury's Supermarket Ltd v Hitt
- s.139(1) ERA 1996
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.