Case 1801576/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Raymond Thompson v Sodexo Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 1801576/2020
- Decision date
- 20 July 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Jones
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Raymond Thompson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought a complaint of express summary unfair dismissal after his purported dismissal for alleged gross misconduct on 29 November 2019. The respondent argued that the dismissal had been reversed on appeal on 21 January 2020, the claimant had been reinstated, and there was therefore no dismissal giving the tribunal jurisdiction to hear the claim.
The tribunal found that the claimant had been successful on appeal and had received back pay in April for the period from dismissal to 7 May 2020, which he accepted and had not repaid or rejected. The tribunal also found that the claimant had not resigned and had not complained of constructive dismissal at any time before the claim was commenced.
Applying the authorities cited to it, the tribunal treated the dismissal reversed on appeal as having no legal effect and therefore not constituting a dismissal. Any later question about termination after the claim was commenced was outside the scope of this claim, so the unfair dismissal claim was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim because the original dismissal was reversed on appeal, the claimant was reinstated, and no constructive dismissal claim or resignation had occurred by the date the claim was commenced. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- J Sainsbury Ltd v Savage [1981] ICR
- Howgate v Fane Acoustics Ltd [1981] IRLR 161
- Salmon v Castlebeck Care [2015] ICR 735
- Patel v Folkestone Nursing Home [2019] ICR 273
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.