Case 2205794/2019 · Employment Tribunal

Mr A Mascia v Pizza Express (Restaurants) Ltd Heard remotely via CVP — 2021

Case reference: 2205794/2019
Decision date: 16 February 2021
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Davidson Representation

Indexed: 22 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr A Mascia

Respondent

Pizza Express (Restaurants) Ltd Heard remotely via CVP

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

Mr A Mascia was employed by Pizza Express (Restaurants) Ltd and was working as Duty Manager at the Great Portland Street restaurant when he decided to close the restaurant early to new customers and limit service to takeaway or Deliveroo orders. He did so without consulting his manager or obtaining authorisation from an Operations Manager, although he had earlier sent the cleaner home when the cleaner appeared unwell. The tribunal found that the respondent investigated the incident, held a disciplinary hearing, and dismissed him for gross misconduct.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	The tribunal held the dismissal unfair because, although the respondent genuinely believed the claimant had closed the restaurant early and had reasonable grounds and a reasonable investigation under Burchell, the appeal stage was not heard. The tribunal found a 75% chance an appeal would have upheld dismissal, and recorded that any compensation would be subject to a 60% contributory reduction and a 25% ACAS uplift.	Upheld	—	—
Whistleblowing	The tribunal found the claimant had not shown that the dismissal was linked to the January 2019 disclosure email, and accepted the respondent's evidence that the investigating and dismissing managers were unaware of the disclosure.	Dismissed	—	—
Wrongful dismissal	The tribunal held the claimant was not entitled to notice pay because he breached an express term of his employment contract by closing the restaurant to new customers without authorisation from an Operations Manager.	Dismissed	—	—

Legal tests applied

5 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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.