Case 1805190/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D v Respondent — 2022
- Case reference
- 1805190/2021
- Decision date
- 26 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Payne
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr D
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Payne sat alone at Leeds by remote video hearing on 24, 25 and 26 May 2022 in the claim by Mr D Brady against Mr Mark Skinner and Mr Mark Dickinson trading as Yorkshire Farmers Meat Company. The tribunal corrected the respondent's name and held that the unfair dismissal claim was well founded.
The tribunal also upheld the breach of contract complaint and ordered the respondent to pay £3,480 gross, being eight weeks of salary at the agreed weekly gross pay of £435. It further found that the respondent had made unlawful deductions from wages in respect of one day of holiday leave owed at the end of employment and ordered £87 gross, calculated by dividing the agreed weekly gross pay by five working days.
Remedy for unfair dismissal was adjourned to 10 November 2022. In relation to any future remedy hearing, the tribunal recorded that the respondent had unreasonably failed to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures, that it was just and equitable to uplift any compensatory award by 25%, that the basic award would be reduced by 20% under s122 Employment Rights Act 1996, and that the compensatory award would be reduced by 40% in total, comprising a 20% Polkey reduction and a further 20% reduction under s123 Employment Rights Act 1996.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The unfair dismissal claim succeeded. Remedy was adjourned to 10 November 2022. For the future remedy hearing, the tribunal recorded that the respondent had unreasonably failed to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures, that any compensatory award would be uplifted by 25%, that the basic award would be reduced by 20% under s122 Employment Rights Act 1996, and that the compensatory award would be reduced by 40% in total, comprising a 20% Polkey reduction and a further 20% reduction under s123 Employment Rights Act 1996. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal held the breach of contract complaint was well founded and ordered £3,480 gross, described as eight weeks of salary at the agreed weekly gross pay of £435. | Upheld | — | £3,480 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent made unlawful deductions from wages in respect of one day of holiday leave owed at the end of employment and ordered £87 gross, calculated by dividing the agreed weekly gross pay of £435 by five working days. | Upheld | — | £87 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,567
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
4 references- ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures
- s.122 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Polkey v A E Dayton Services Ltd [1988] ICR 142
- s.123 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.