Case 3201289/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Maureen Blankson v Engie Services Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 3201289/2019
- Decision date
- 18 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hallen Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Maureen Blankson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed for serious misconduct rather than capability. It accepted the respondent's evidence that, as a manager, the claimant assisted two staff members who were removing a large quantity of client promotional stock from the site and failed to report the matter when asked to help search for the missing items. The tribunal concluded that misconduct was the genuine reason for dismissal.
On fairness, the tribunal held that the respondent had a genuine belief in the claimant's misconduct based on reasonable grounds and a reasonable investigation, including CCTV review and witness interviews. It found that the disciplinary and appeal processes were fair and that summary dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses, so the unfair dismissal claim failed. Because the tribunal found gross misconduct, the wrongful dismissal claim for notice pay also failed.
On holiday pay, the tribunal construed clause 8 of the contract as providing for monthly accrual and held that the claimant had accrued holiday entitlement through January and February 2019, awarding £463.49. The respondent's counterclaim for overpayment was dismissed because the alleged overpayment arose after termination and therefore fell outside the tribunal's jurisdiction under the Extension of Jurisdiction Order 1994.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the reason for dismissal was serious misconduct, that the respondent held a genuine belief on reasonable grounds after a reasonable investigation, and that summary dismissal fell within the band of reasonable responses. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Dismissed because the tribunal found the claimant was guilty of gross misconduct, entitling the respondent to dismiss without notice. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal awarded £463.49. The judgment refers to 'five days holiday pay' in paragraph 59 but also to '5.5 days holiday pay' in the judgment heading and paragraph 2; the monetary figure awarded is clear. | Upheld | — | £463 |
| Other | Section 10 Employment Relations Act 1999 / right to be accompanied claim was withdrawn by the claimant at the hearing and dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £463
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
8 references- s.98(1) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- Robinson v Combat Stress
- Iceland Frozen Foods Ltd v Jones
- Sainsburys Supermarket Ltd v Hitt
- London Ambulance NHS Trust v Small
- British Home Stores v Burchell
- paragraph 4 Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994
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.