Mr V Beinarovics v Monolith (UK) Ltd — 2026

The tribunal unanimously dismissed all of the claimant's complaints and also dismissed the respondent's counterclaim. On the victimisation claim under section 27 of the Equality Act 2010, although it was accepted that the claimant had done a protected act when he complained on 9 March 2022 about discrimination on grounds of Jewish race, the tribunal was not satisfied that this was the reason for the dismissal. On the automatically unfair dismissal claims under sections 104 and 104A of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the tribunal did not find that the principal reason for dismissal was the claimant's assertion of statutory rights regarding holiday pay, working time or unlawful deductions.

On the ordinary unfair dismissal claim under section 98 ERA 1996, the tribunal weighed the deficiencies in the procedure against its strengths and concluded on balance that the procedure was fair in the circumstances. It found the respondent was entitled to conclude that the claimant had committed gross misconduct, including taking a photograph while driving at 54mph, keeping the location tracking of his orders switched off, and refusing to allow inspection of his company phone. The tribunal held that dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses and that, on its own assessment, the claimant did in fact commit gross misconduct.

The respondent's counterclaim for breach of contract was dismissed. On the fuel card allegation, the tribunal was not persuaded there was no custom or practice of personal use, noted the long period before the issue was raised, and considered the contractual basis for claiming repayment inadequate. On the working hours allegation, the tribunal noted the claimant did not have fixed hours and was not paid hourly, so could not have breached the contract by failing to work specific hours; the appropriate route was misconduct, which had been pursued.