Case 2304089/2017 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Gayle v Gavin Jones Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 2304089/2017
- Decision date
- 3 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cheetham QC
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Gayle
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Daniel Gayle brought claims against Gavin Jones Limited for unfair dismissal and for unauthorised deductions from wages. The tribunal heard evidence from the claimant, Mr Neil Attride and Mrs Nicola Prior at London South on 5 and 6 September 2019, and Employment Judge Cheetham QC gave judgment on 3 October 2019.
On the dismissal claim, the tribunal found that the claimant had been absent on 30 and 31 August and 1 September 2017 without contacting the respondent, after having already received a final written warning in January 2016 for absence without good reason. The claimant did not dispute the absences and the tribunal accepted that there was no evidence of notification to the employer on those days. It found that the respondent was entitled to treat the matter as serious, that the investigation could properly be limited to the admitted facts, and that dismissal was not pre-determined.
The tribunal rejected the claimant’s case that the dismissal was really for redundancy or because of a shortage of work at Elephant Park. It found that the reason for dismissal was conduct, described in the dismissal letter as unauthorised absence without good reason, and that gross misconduct was a conclusion reasonably open to the respondent. The appeal was not pursued by the claimant after he was invited to attend a rescheduled appeal meeting. The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed.
The wages claim was treated as a claim for unauthorised deductions, although the tribunal noted that its scope was unclear and had in its final form included holiday pay and overtime allegations. The tribunal found that the December 2015 and January 2016 payslips had been misunderstood: entries marked as leave no pay reflected unauthorised absence, while deductions shown as salary adjustment were later credited under annual holiday or bank holiday pay headings. It also found that the overtime item was based on a misreading of the pay slip. The tribunal concluded that there were no unlawful deductions from wages and dismissed that claim as well.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claimant said the dismissal was really redundancy; the tribunal found the reason was conduct, namely unauthorised absence without notification, and held the summary dismissal for gross misconduct was fair. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The deductions claim was difficult to define and in its final form included holiday pay and overtime allegations. The tribunal found the payslip entries reflected leave without pay or holiday recorded under different headings, so there were no unlawful deductions. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.