Case 2225877/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr E Velasquez Marin v Total Clean Services Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 2225877/2024
- Decision date
- 16 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ms
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr E Velasquez Marin
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant resigned after the Respondent suspended him and investigated a third party client's accusation of theft. The Respondent did not proceed to a disciplinary stage, accepted the Claimant's version of events, and offered him similar work at other premises after the client declined to have him continue at its site.
The Tribunal found that the Respondent followed its own proper procedures, that suspension and investigation were reasonable and necessary in the circumstances, and that no Spanish interpreter was needed because the investigator and Claimant were both native Spanish speakers. It accepted that the Claimant had been gravely upset, but found that the Respondent behaved fairly and reasonably and had reasonable and proper cause for its actions.
The Tribunal concluded that the Claimant had not shown a fundamental breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. His complaint of constructive unfair dismissal therefore failed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The judgment describes the complaint as constructive unfair dismissal and states that it is not well-founded and fails. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Section 95(1)(c) Employment Rights Act 1996
- fundamental breach of the implied term of trust and confidence
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.