Case 1800165/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Mason v Eastman Staples Ltd Heard: via Cloud Video Platform — 2023
- Case reference
- 1800165/2023
- Decision date
- 10 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ayre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Mason
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the final hearing, the tribunal found that Mr D Mason was employed by Eastman Staples Ltd and not by Andrew Kyprianou. The offer letter was on Eastman Staples Ltd headed paper, the claimant was paid by Eastman Staples Ltd, and there was no evidence that Mr Kyprianou was his employer, so Mr Kyprianou was removed as a respondent.
On unfair dismissal, the tribunal found that the respondent had not adduced any evidence of a fair reason for dismissal or of a fair procedure. It accepted the claimant's evidence that he was not guilty of gross misconduct, and it found that there had been no investigation meeting, that some allegations were not even put to him at the disciplinary hearing, and that no appeal meeting was arranged. The unfair dismissal claim therefore succeeded.
The tribunal also found that Eastman Staples Ltd breached the claimant's contract by dismissing him without the 12 weeks' notice to which he was entitled or paying him in lieu. It made no separate damages award for that breach because the notice period was already covered by the unfair dismissal award. Separately, it held that the respondent unlawfully deducted wages by failing to pay salary and car allowance for October 2022, when the claimant had worked until 21 October 2022.
For remedy, the tribunal awarded a basic award of £1,713 and a compensatory award of £10,005.52 for unfair dismissal, including £350 for loss of statutory rights and financial loss to 27 February 2023 less earnings and pension contributions from Sainsbury's. It awarded £1,997.52 for the unlawful deduction claim, producing a total award of £13,716.04. Paragraph 54 contains an arithmetic inconsistency in the reasons, but the ordered figures are those set out in paragraphs 57 and 58.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found no fair reason for dismissal and no fair procedure, accepted the claimant's evidence that he was not guilty of gross misconduct, and noted that there was no investigation meeting, some allegations were not put to him at the disciplinary hearing, and no appeal was arranged. The unfair dismissal award comprised a basic award of £1,713 and a compensatory award of £10,005.52; the reasons contain an arithmetic inconsistency in paragraph 54, but the ordered figures are those set out in paragraphs 57 and 58. | Upheld | — | £11,719 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that the claimant worked until 21 October 2022 but was not paid salary or car allowance for October 2022. It awarded £1,997.52 for 21 days at a daily rate of £95.12. | Upheld | — | £1,998 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found that the claimant was entitled to 12 weeks' notice or payment in lieu, but was dismissed with immediate effect. No separate damages were awarded because the notice period was already covered by the unfair dismissal award, to avoid double recovery. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £13,716
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £1,713
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £10,006
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
6 references- section 94 ERA 1996
- section 118 ERA 1996
- section 119 ERA 1996
- section 123 ERA 1996
- section 13 ERA 1996
- Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994
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.