Case 1600099/2019 · Employment Tribunal
(1) Mr M Jamroz (2) Miss I Toporek (3) Mr M Koziol (4) Mr C Grudnik (5) Mr B Koziol (6) Mr A Koziol (7) Mr W Kubak v TLSC London Ltd and 2 others — 2019
- Case reference
- 1600099/2019
- Decision date
- 29 March 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Jenkins Representation
- Venue
- Swansea
Parties
4 namedClaimant
(1) Mr M Jamroz (2) Miss I Toporek (3) Mr M Koziol (4) Mr C Grudnik (5) Mr B Koziol (6) Mr A Koziol (7) Mr W Kubak
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claims arose from the termination of the Claimants' employment with TLSC London Limited on 31 December 2018. The tribunal recorded that claims for notice, arrears of pay and holiday pay had been brought by all Claimants, with some claims also including unfair dismissal, redundancy payment and race discrimination. Because the First Respondent was in compulsory liquidation, the tribunal stayed the claims against it until 4 September 2020 unless permission of the court was obtained for them to proceed.
The claims against the Second Respondent, Mr S Clemett, were dismissed. The tribunal found that the Claimants had not undertaken early conciliation against him, as the ACAS certificates named only TLSC London Limited. It also noted that no particulars of the race discrimination claims were included in the claim forms and that the Claimants indicated that all employees, including British employees, had been dismissed at the same time.
The Fifth Claimant's redundancy payment claim against the Secretary of State succeeded. The tribunal found that he had referred his right to a redundancy payment to the employment tribunal within six months of the termination date and had therefore complied with section 164 ERA. It concluded that the Secretary of State was obliged to pay him £1,050 under section 166 ERA. The Secretary of State was also added as a respondent to the other Claimants' claims, with directions to submit responses.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The Fifth Claimant's redundancy payment claim against the Secretary of State succeeded; the tribunal ordered payment of £1,050. | Upheld | — | £1,050 |
| Race discrimination | Race discrimination claims against the Second Respondent were dismissed because the claim forms did not contain an early conciliation number for that respondent or identify an exemption. The tribunal also stated that, if necessary, it would have struck them out as having no reasonable prospect of success. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Arrears of pay claims against the First Respondent were stayed because the First Respondent was in compulsory liquidation; the Secretary of State was added as a respondent and directed to respond. | Other | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Holiday pay claims against the First Respondent were stayed because the First Respondent was in compulsory liquidation; the Secretary of State was added as a respondent and directed to respond. | Other | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Notice pay claims against the First Respondent were stayed because the First Respondent was in compulsory liquidation; the Secretary of State was added as a respondent and directed to respond. | Other | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records that some unfair dismissal claims had been brought and that the Fifth Claimant also pursued unfair dismissal, but these claims were not substantively determined in this judgment. |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,050
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
7 references- section 130(2) Insolvency Act 1986
- Rule 12(1) Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure
- Rule 37 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure
- Rule 34 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure
- section 164 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 166 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 184 Employment Rights Act 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.
- 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.