Case 1805191/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Januszewski v Ultima Furniture Systems Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 1805191/2019
- Decision date
- 26 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brain
- Venue
- Sheffield
- Panel members
- Mrs J Lancaster, Mr K Lannaman
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Januszewski
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the claimant and Karl O'Brien argued on 13 June 2019 over an electric pallet truck. It accepted that the claimant behaved inappropriately on the shop floor, and that Mrs Rhodes and Mrs Pennington had cause to ask him to the canteen. The meeting in the canteen involved management discussing options, with Piotr Tymosiak assisting as translator, and the tribunal accepted that the claimant had limited English and that the exchange was prone to misunderstanding.
The tribunal rejected the claimant's evidence that Mr Thompson said the respondent needed "to say goodbye" and that Mrs Pennington said "sorry George". It found instead that the words used were that he should go home or go to Sherburn for the rest of the day. On the tribunal's findings, continued employment at South Kirkby was not presented as an option, but the respondent did not intend to dismiss him. The claimant was found to have left the premises, put his boots in the bin, and not returned, so the tribunal held that he resigned and had not been dismissed.
For that reason the unfair dismissal complaint failed, and the direct race discrimination complaint failed because it was based on an alleged dismissal that the tribunal found did not happen. The harassment complaint also failed overall. The tribunal found that Mrs Rhodes' raised voice was to make herself heard over factory noise and that her conduct was not related to Polish nationality. It found that Mr Thompson's instruction to go home or work at Sherburn, and his escorting the claimant from the building, were unwanted and humiliating but were responses to the incident and not race-related.
The tribunal noted that the respondent did not investigate the claimant's race complaint, had no equal opportunities training, and had only limited engagement with its equal opportunities policy. It also commented on ill-judged Facebook posts by Mr Ellis, but held that there was no structural or institutional discriminatory regime against foreign workers. The holiday pay claim was withdrawn after the respondent paid the outstanding £105.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal rejected the claimant's case that he was dismissed on 13 June 2019. It found the canteen discussion was ambiguous but that the claimant was given a choice of going home or working at Sherburn, and that he resigned by leaving the site and not returning. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The only pleaded direct discrimination complaint was that the claimant was dismissed because of race/nationality. It failed because the tribunal found that no dismissal occurred. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | The tribunal found the alleged shouting, instruction to go home or to Sherburn, and escort from the building were unwanted, but they were not related to Polish nationality. It treated the conduct as a response to the shop-floor incident rather than race-related harassment. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Holiday pay | Withdrawn after the respondent paid the outstanding holiday pay of £105. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- s.94 ERA 1996
- s.95 ERA 1996
- unambiguous words / special circumstances
- reasonable listener test
- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.26 Equality Act 2010
- s.39(2) Equality Act 2010
- s.40 Equality Act 2010
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.