Case 2600402/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Rafal Jarzemski v Williams Recycling Centre Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2600402/2021
- Decision date
- 11 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge P Britton
- Venue
- Leicester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Rafal Jarzemski
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a record of a preliminary hearing heard at Leicester on 14 December 2021 before Employment Judge P Britton sitting alone. The claimant was represented by Mr Matthew Moss, solicitor, and the respondent was represented by its co-directors, Mrs Susan Williams and Mr Cees Van Berkel.
The tribunal recorded that the claim of unfair dismissal succeeded. It ordered Williams Recycling Centre Limited to pay the claimant compensation in the total sum of £5,478.00.
The tribunal also recorded that the claimant did not claim any state benefits during the short period of unemployment, so the recoupment provisions did not apply to the award. Reasons had been given orally at the hearing, and the written record noted that no written reasons would be provided unless requested in time.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal recorded that the unfair dismissal claim succeeded and ordered the respondent to pay compensation of £5,478.00. It also stated that the claimant did not claim any state benefits during the short period of unemployment, so the recoupment provisions did not apply. | Upheld | — | £5,478 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,478
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £5,478
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.