Case 1405251/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Clemente v MSA Manufacturing Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 1405251/2019
- Decision date
- 29 April 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Christensen Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Clemente
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Mr R Clemente had been unfairly dismissed by reference to procedural unfairness. The decision was given after the hearing at Bristol by CVP on 19, 20 and 21 April 2021, and the written judgment was sent to the parties on 29 April 2021.
The tribunal declined to make an order for reinstatement or re-engagement. It said that, in light of the findings on contributory conduct, such an order was not practicable.
On remedy, the tribunal applied a Polkey analysis and found there was a 100% chance that the claimant would have been dismissed even if the procedural unfairness had not occurred. It therefore stated that the claimant was entitled only to one week’s pay as compensation for the additional time he would have remained employed to remedy the procedural defect.
The tribunal also found that the claimant had caused or contributed to his dismissal by blameworthy conduct. Under s.123(6) and s.122(2), it reduced both the compensatory award and the basic award by 100%. It noted failures to comply with provisions of the ACAS Code which would have led to a 10% uplift in any compensation awarded, but because the awards were reduced to nil, no compensation was payable.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the dismissal was unfair by reference to procedural unfairness. Reinstatement or re-engagement was refused because, in light of the findings on contributory conduct, it was not practicable. The tribunal found a 100% Polkey chance of dismissal absent the procedural unfairness, and also found contributory conduct justifying 100% reductions to both the compensatory and basic awards, resulting in no compensation. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £0
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
4 references- Polkey
- s.123(6) ERA 1996
- s.122(2) ERA 1996
- ACAS Code
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.