Case 1800676/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Madris Ali v Voice Marketing Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 1800676/2019
- Decision date
- 22 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brain Representation
- Venue
- Sheffield
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Madris Ali
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Madris Ali worked for Voice Marketing Ltd as a telesales adviser from 10 August 2015 until his employment ended on 28 January 2019. After his long-running Domestic and General campaign ended in August 2018, he moved to an EDF campaign. The tribunal found that the EDF training and support were inadequate: Mrs Whitehead accepted in her grievance findings that the training was not of the standard she would have expected, that further support was needed, and that earlier concerns had not been properly addressed. The tribunal accepted that this was a breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence.
The tribunal rejected the other limbs of the claim. It found that Mr Endersby had reasonable and proper cause to suspend and investigate the claimant after the incident of 23 October 2018, and that Miss Bailey had a reasonable basis for issuing a written warning after the disciplinary hearing. Although the tribunal considered it unfortunate that the disciplinary letter did not identify the gross misconduct alleged, it found no procedural unfairness on the facts because the claimant knew the hearing concerned the 23 October incident. The tribunal also found no sufficient evidence that the claimant had been bullied or harassed by colleagues, and it held that Miss Bailey's failure to rescind her decision after learning of the grievance was not itself a breach.
The tribunal did find a further breach in the respondent's failure to progress the claimant's appeal against the written warning, but it held that this omission did not cause his resignation. By contrast, the inadequate training and support on the EDF campaign did cause the claimant to resign, and he had not affirmed the contract by waiting until after Mrs Whitehead's 5 December 2018 grievance outcome. The claimant's complaint of constructive unfair dismissal therefore succeeded.
On remedy, the tribunal awarded a basic award of £513 after a 50% reduction for the claimant's conduct, and a compensatory award of £1,874.76. The compensatory award comprised £1,258.50 for loss of earnings from 29 January to 10 March 2019, £266.26 for loss of earnings from 11 March to 10 September 2019, and £350 for loss of statutory right. The total award was £2,387.76. No award was made for any ACAS uplift.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | Constructive unfair dismissal succeeded on the basis that the respondent failed to provide adequate training and support when the claimant moved onto the EDF campaign. The tribunal rejected the claimant's bullying/harassment and disciplinary-procedure complaints as independent bases for the resignation, and found that the failure to progress the appeal was a breach but not an operative cause of resignation. | Upheld | — | £2,388 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,388
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £513
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £1,875
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
5 references- implied term of mutual trust and confidence
- repudiatory breach
- acceptance of repudiation
- s.98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures
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.