Case 2200228/2023 · Employment Tribunal
(1) Mr G Lepiarz (2) Mr D Lewis v Trades Union Congress — 2024
- Case reference
- 2200228/2023
- Decision date
- 31 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Joffe
- Panel members
- Mr M Simon, Mr F Benson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
(1) Mr G Lepiarz (2) Mr D Lewis
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal (EJ Joffe sitting with Mr M Simon and Mr F Benson) heard claims by Mr G Lepiarz and Mr D Lewis against the Trades Union Congress arising out of their summary dismissals for alleged misconduct connected to the creation of a website for Newham Trades Council and a payment requested from its secretary, Ms Dye. Both claimants' unfair dismissal claims were upheld: the Tribunal found significant deficiencies in the investigation, the disclosure of evidence and the impartiality of the appeal, such that the respondent had not acted within the band of reasonable responses. The Tribunal declined to make any Polkey reduction, concluding it could not say there was any chance the claimants would have been fairly dismissed in any event.
The Tribunal found the claimants had caused or contributed to their dismissals by blameworthy conduct and reduced the compensatory award by 15% for Mr Lepiarz and 20% for Mr Lewis. The wrongful dismissal (breach of contract) claims also succeeded, as the respondent did not establish on the balance of probabilities that the claimants were guilty of conduct amounting to a repudiatory breach justifying summary dismissal. The Tribunal also found there had been unreasonable failures to comply with the Acas Code (paragraphs 9 and 27) and indicated an uplift would be appropriate, with the quantum to be determined at a remedy hearing.
Mr Lewis's direct race discrimination claim, concerning being moved to half pay in July and August 2022 with Mr Lepiarz as comparator, was not upheld and was dismissed: Mr Lepiarz was not an appropriate comparator because he had withdrawn his sick certificate, and there was no evidence from which the Tribunal could reasonably conclude the treatment was because of race. By consent, the respondent agreed to pay Mr Lewis £1,060.80 for unpaid sick pay (July/August 2022) and £3,005.95 gross in unpaid holiday pay.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Both claimants' unfair dismissal claims upheld. Compensatory award to be reduced for contributory fault: 15% (first claimant Mr Lepiarz), 20% (second claimant Mr Lewis). No Polkey reduction. Remedy (including Acas uplift quantum) reserved to a remedy hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Both claimants' wrongful dismissal (breach of contract) claims upheld; summary dismissal was in breach of contract. No specific sum recorded in this liability judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | By consent: respondent to pay second claimant (Mr Lewis) £1,060.80 for unpaid sick pay for July and August 2022. | Settled | — | £1,061 |
| Holiday pay | By consent: respondent to pay second claimant (Mr Lewis) £3,005.95 gross in unpaid holiday pay, less PAYE/NI. | Settled | — | £3,006 |
| Race discrimination | Second claimant's direct race discrimination claim (re move to half pay July/August 2022, comparator Mr Lepiarz) not upheld and dismissed. Tribunal found Mr Lepiarz was not an appropriate comparator (he withdrew his sick certificate) and no evidence from which the burden of proof could shift. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,067
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
5 references- Burchell test
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- Polkey reduction
- Acas Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures
- Lawless (guidance on Acas uplift)
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.
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.