Case 2301611/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Yaw Oppong v Regular Cleaning Services — 2021
- Case reference
- 2301611/2020
- Decision date
- 4 August 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge A. Beale Representation
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Yaw Oppong
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Yaw Oppong was employed by Regular Cleaning Services Limited as a cleaning operative from 7 April 2016 until 26 November 2019. The case arose from a physical fight with another employee, K, on 6 October 2019. The tribunal accepted that the fight occurred, considered the hospital discharge summary showing K's neck injury and eye swelling, and reviewed the claimant's own shifting accounts, including the statement prepared through his brother and the later investigatory and disciplinary interviews.
Applying s.98 ERA 1996 and the Burchell approach, the tribunal found that the respondent genuinely believed the claimant had committed misconduct and had reasonable grounds for that belief after a reasonable investigation. It accepted that the claimant had given inconsistent accounts of the incident and had raised his voice during the 30 October 2019 investigatory meeting, and it rejected criticism of the timing of the meeting, the interpreter arrangements, and the handling of the medical evidence.
The unfair dismissal claim nevertheless succeeded because the tribunal found the sanction of dismissal outside the range of reasonable responses when compared with K's case. It found the two cases were sufficiently similar for a disparity argument: both men were involved in the same fight, both gave inconsistent accounts, and the respondent's witnesses had not identified a clear rational basis for dismissing the claimant but retaining K on a warning. The wrongful dismissal claim failed because the claimant's conduct amounted to gross misconduct. The tribunal also found the claimant's conduct was culpable and blameworthy to such an extent that any basic award and compensatory award would be reduced by 100% under ss.122(2) and 123(6) ERA 1996, and that it would have applied a 90% Polkey reduction in any event. No monetary award was quantified in this judgment; remedy and costs were left for separate determination if required.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the dismissal unfair because, although the respondent genuinely believed the misconduct allegations and had reasonable grounds, dismissal fell outside the range of reasonable responses in light of the disparate treatment of the claimant and K. No monetary award was quantified in this judgment; remedy and costs were left to a separate order/hearing if required. | Upheld | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant's conduct amounted to gross misconduct, so summary dismissal without notice was justified. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
13 references- s.98 ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- British Home Stores Ltd v Burchell
- Iceland Frozen Foods Ltd v Jones
- Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd v Hitt
- UK Coal Mining Limited v Raby
- Hadjioannou v Coral Casinos Ltd
- s.122(2) ERA 1996
- s.123(6) ERA 1996
- Nelson v BBC (No. 2)
- Ladrick Lemonious v Church Commissioners
- Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd
- Software 2000 Ltd v Andrews
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.