Case 1804674/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Milczarek v Hermes Parcelnet Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 1804674/2019
- Decision date
- 10 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Milczarek
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was dismissed after a random search found an unopened bottle of aftershave and mascara in his possession. The claimant said his wife had bought the aftershave and that he had found the mascara on the warehouse floor about a month earlier and forgotten to hand it in. The tribunal found he knew the respondent's procedure for unallocated items and had previously complied with it.
The tribunal accepted that the disciplinary process was not perfect, including the absence of notes from the first disciplinary hearing and no formal letter for the adjourned hearing. However, it found the claimant had received the relevant documents, understood the allegations, had translation support, and was given an opportunity to produce evidence about the aftershave. Looking at the challenges individually and cumulatively, the process was found to be reasonably fair.
The tribunal held that the dismissing officer reasonably believed, following a reasonable investigation, that the claimant possessed property that did not belong to him. Dismissal was found to be within the band of reasonable responses, and the unfair dismissal complaint was dismissed. The wrongful dismissal complaint was also dismissed because the tribunal found actual gross misconduct had been established in relation to the mascara.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the conduct reason was conceded as potentially fair and the dismissal fell within the band of reasonable responses after a reasonably fair process. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal found the respondent had established actual gross misconduct in relation to the mascara, based on the claimant's admission that he had company property in his possession which he should not have had. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
18 references- section 98(1) ERA 1996
- section 98(2) ERA 1996
- section 98(4) ERA 1996
- British Home Stores Ltd v Burchell
- Sheffield Health and Social Care NHS Foundation Trust v Crabtree
- Sainsbury's Supermarket v Hitt
- London Waste Ltd v Scrivens
- Iceland Frozen Foods Ltd v James
- section 123(6) ERA 1996
- section 122(2) ERA 1996
- Nelson v BBC
- Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd
- King v Eaton Ltd
- O'Donoghue v Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council
- Britool Ltd v Roberts
- Software 2000 Ltd v Andrews
- Brito-Babapulle v Ealing Hospitals NHS Trust
- section 207A Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
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.