Mr. A Parodi v Gloster MEP Limited — 2023

At the start of the hearing the claimant confirmed that he was only pursuing an automatically unfair dismissal claim under section 104 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The other complaints, including unlawful deduction from wages, notice pay/breach of contract/wrongful dismissal, failure to provide a written statement or employment particulars, and statutory redundancy pay, were withdrawn and were dismissed on that basis.

The claimant began work on 1 September 2021 as a Trainee Project Manager and was paid 17,000 pounds in his first year. In December 2022 he raised concern that he was not being paid the correct National Minimum Wage, and the respondent accepted that due to human error the correct rate had not been paid from the second year of training. The matter was rectified in December 2022, including a back payment of 821.97 pounds, and the tribunal found that the disputed amount was less than 30 pounds.

The tribunal found that concerns about the claimant's attitude and performance had existed before the National Minimum Wage issue, including concerns about timekeeping, extended breaks, engagement with tasks, expenses, and the tone of his communications. It held that the reason or principal reason for dismissal was not that he asserted a statutory right to be paid the National Minimum Wage, but rather a range of concerns about his attitude, performance, and fit with the business. The tribunal therefore dismissed the section 104 claim.

The tribunal also held that, because the claimant pursued his appeal to conclusion and the respondent reinstated him with continuity of service, the original dismissal had in any event vanished. It relied on Patel v Folkestone Nursing Home Ltd and Marangakis v Iceland Foods Ltd in reaching that conclusion, and noted that the claimant later said he did not wish to return to work.