Case 1806815/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Royston v Greenwood Engineering Services Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 1806815/2020
- Decision date
- 8 April 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Rawlinson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Royston
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr A Royston worked for Greenwood Engineering Services Limited from October 2009 until his dismissal with one week’s notice on 13 October 2020. The tribunal found that the principal reason for dismissal was persistent short-term absenteeism. It accepted that the claimant’s absences were frequent in 2019 and 2020, that the respondent was a small family engineering business, and that the absenteeism had a significant effect on production and planning in that business.
The tribunal preferred the evidence of Mr Robert Green over the claimant’s account on the warnings issue. It found that the claimant had been warned formally on at least five occasions between September 2019 and September 2020, that he was repeatedly asked to provide self-certification, and that he refused to do so. The tribunal rejected the allegation that signatures on the warning documents had been forged or fabricated.
On that basis, the tribunal held that absenteeism was a potentially fair reason for dismissal and that the decision to dismiss was substantively within the range of reasonable responses. However, it found the dismissal procedurally unfair because after the claimant’s absence on 2 October 2020 the respondent moved straight to dismissal on 5 October 2020 without any final meeting or hearing and without offering any appeal route. The tribunal found that the claimant should have been given a final opportunity to make representations and that the ACAS factors were not considered at that stage.
The tribunal applied a 100% Polkey reduction to the compensatory award, finding that the claimant would still have been dismissed even if a fair procedure had been followed. It also found contributory conduct because the claimant had refused to provide self-certification and had not engaged properly with the respondent’s attendance process. The basic award was reduced by 75%, producing a payable basic award of £935. The claimant’s breach of contract / notice pay complaint had been withdrawn and therefore did not proceed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed under section 98 ERA 1996. It accepted persistent absenteeism as the potentially fair reason and found the dismissal substantively within the range of reasonable responses, but held the procedure unfair because the respondent moved straight to dismissal on 5 October 2020 without a final hearing or any appeal. A 100% Polkey reduction was applied to compensation, and the basic award was reduced by 75% for contributory conduct. | Upheld | — | £935 |
| Breach of contract | The claimant withdrew the notice pay / breach of contract complaint at the start of the hearing; the judgment records it as dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £935
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £935
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £0
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
16 references- s.94 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.95(1)(a) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.98(2)(a) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures
- International Sports Co Ltd v Thomson
- Post Office v Jones
- Lynock v Cereal Packaging Ltd
- Backhouse v Coleman's of Stamford
- Polkey v A E Dayton Services Ltd
- Software 2000 Ltd v Andrews
- W Devis & Sons Ltd v Atkins
- Crédit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank v Wardle
- Hill v Governing Body of Great Tey Primary School
- Nelson v BBC (No 2)
- Hollier v Plysu
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.