Case 2401535/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Mawdsley v Mentha and Halsall Shopfitters Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2401535/2021
- Decision date
- 25 August 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Slater Representation
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Mawdsley
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr D Mawdsley was employed by Mentha and Halsall Shopfitters Ltd as a joiner and resigned on 13 January 2021 after the respondent issued him with a written warning arising from an altercation with Kevin Richards. The tribunal found that the claimant resigned because the warning was issued without a disciplinary hearing and without giving him an opportunity to respond to the investigation findings before the decision was taken.
The tribunal held that this amounted to a fundamental breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence. It found serious departures from the respondent’s own disciplinary procedure and the ACAS Code of Practice on Discipline and Grievance: the claimant was not given advance notice of the specific allegations, was not provided with the witness statements or CCTV relied on, and was not given a proper chance to comment before the warning was issued. The tribunal also found that the respondent did not have reasonable or proper cause for proceeding in that way, and concluded that the claimant had been constructively dismissed. The respondent did not argue that any constructive dismissal was fair, so the unfair dismissal complaint was well-founded.
The separate section 38 Employment Act 2002 complaint failed. The tribunal was not satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the claimant had not been issued with a written statement of employment particulars, noting that the claimant accepted he might simply have forgotten receiving it and that the particulars appeared likely to have been issued around the same time as the employee handbook. Liability only was determined in this decision; the remedy hearing was listed for 18 October 2021.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Constructive unfair dismissal upheld under s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996 after the claimant resigned in response to the written warning issued without a disciplinary hearing or prior opportunity to answer the allegations. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | Claim under section 38 Employment Act 2002 concerning failure to provide a written statement of employment particulars was found not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- s.94(1) ERA 1996
- s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996
- implied term of mutual trust and confidence
- Woods v WM Car Services (Peterborough) Ltd
- ACAS Code of Practice on Discipline and Grievance
- section 38 Employment Act 2002
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.