Case 1600123/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Collins v Bicks Chicks Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 1600123/2022
- Decision date
- 16 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge A Frazer Representation
- Venue
- Wales CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Collins
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr S Collins was employed by Bicks Chicks Ltd as a butcher from 1 November 2009 until summary dismissal on 4 January 2022. The tribunal found that he tested positive for COVID-19 on 25 December 2021, came to work on 29 December, and was then dismissed for doing so. The respondent did not attend the hearing, and the tribunal gave less weight to its untested written material than to the claimant's evidence.
On the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal accepted that conduct was a potentially fair reason under s.98(2)(b) ERA 1996 and applied BHS v Burchell and s.98(4) ERA 1996. It found that the respondent did not carry out a fair procedure: there was no advance warning, no proper opportunity to respond, no appeal, and no adequate investigation before dismissal. The tribunal therefore held the dismissal unfair. It found that the claimant had contributed to his dismissal by 75% because he attended work four days after a positive test and did not follow the Government self-isolation guidance, although it also noted evidence that Mr Davies later suggested he come in during the night because of staffing pressure.
The tribunal accepted a week's pay of £400.95. It assessed the basic award at £4,800 before reduction, reduced it by 75% to £1,200, and assessed the compensatory award at £801.90, increased by 20% under the ACAS Code to £1,032.85, then reduced by 75% to £258.21. The resulting unfair dismissal award was £1,458.21. On wrongful dismissal, the tribunal was not satisfied that gross misconduct was made out, but it did find very serious misconduct and awarded the balance of notice pay of £543.69. There was no recoupment.
The tribunal dismissed the redundancy payment claim, the holiday pay claim, and the unpaid wages claim. It also found that the respondent had failed to provide a statement of employment particulars contrary to s.1 ERA 1996 and awarded £200.47 for that breach after applying the same reductions. It further found a failure to provide itemised pay slips contrary to s.8 ERA 1996, but made no award under s.8. The total award was £2,202.37.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the dismissal unfair because the respondent did not carry out a reasonable investigation or follow a fair procedure before dismissing the claimant for attending work after a positive COVID test. The basic award and compensatory award were both reduced by 75% for contributory fault. | Upheld | — | £1,458 |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal did not find gross misconduct, but it did find very serious misconduct and awarded the balance of notice pay. | Upheld | — | £544 |
| Redundancy | The claimant confirmed he was not entitled to a redundancy payment because the case was pleaded as a conduct dismissal. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The claimant confirmed there was no claim for accrued but untaken holiday at termination. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim for unpaid wages for 26 to 28 December 2021 was not proved; the tribunal could not link the £1,000 bank payment to those dates. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Failure to provide a statement of employment particulars contrary to s.1 ERA 1996. The tribunal awarded two weeks' pay and then reduced it for contributory fault. | Upheld |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,202
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £1,200
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £258
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
7 references- s.98(2)(b) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- BHS v Burchell [1978] ICR 303
- band of reasonable responses
- ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary Procedures
- s.122(2) ERA 1996
- s.123(6) 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.