Case 1602561/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. A. Quin v Secureahome PVCU Ltd HELD BY: CVP — 2021
- Case reference
- 1602561/2020
- Decision date
- 20 June 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T. Vincent Ryan
- Panel members
- Ms. M. Humphries, Mr. P. Bradney
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. A. Quin
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Quin succeeded in his claims against Secureahome PVCU Ltd for ordinary unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal in relation to notice, breach of contract concerning contractual commissions, unauthorised deductions from wages, unpaid holiday pay for five accrued but untaken days, and failure to provide written employment particulars. The tribunal recorded the commission and deduction period as 23 March to 15 August 2021.
It also upheld his complaint that he was subjected to detriments because he sought to exercise the right to be accompanied at a grievance and/or disciplinary hearing. The detriments identified were the denial of a disciplinary hearing before the decision to dismiss him, denial of the opportunity to take part in a disciplinary process, denial of the opportunity to resolve his grievances, and denial of the opportunity to appeal his dismissal.
The tribunal rejected the automatic unfair dismissal claim. It found that the principal reason for dismissal was Mr Quin's non-attendance at work on 15 August 2020 as demanded by the respondent, rather than his assertion of statutory rights.
Claims and outcomes
8 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 | Ordinary unfair dismissal found on 15 August 2020. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal claim failed; the tribunal found the principal reason for dismissal was the claimant's non-attendance at work on 15 August 2020 as demanded by the respondent, not his assertion of statutory rights. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Dismissal was in breach of contract in relation to notice of termination. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Breach of contract concerning payment of contractual commissions during the period recorded in the judgment as 23 March to 15 August 2021. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deductions from wages during the period recorded in the judgment as 23 March to 15 August 2021. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Failure to pay holiday pay for 5 days' holidays accrued but untaken at the date of dismissal. | Upheld |
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.