Case 3201545/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Zhiqian Huang v China Unicom (Europe) Operations Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 3201545/2019
- Decision date
- 20 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Housego Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Zhiqian Huang
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that Mr Huang was unfairly dismissed by China Unicom (Europe) Operations Ltd. The respondent said it dismissed him for gross misconduct, alleging sexual harassment of a female colleague by WeChat messages. The tribunal recorded that the real issue was whether that reason was made out and, if so, whether the dismissal was fair under section 98(4) ERA 1996, applying the Burchell approach to belief, reasonable grounds and reasonable investigation.
On the facts, the tribunal found the suspension decision was not taken solely because of the alleged harassment. It held that Ms Zhou suspended Mr Huang after A had already been dismissed and after A had indicated she intended to bring claims against the respondent, and that the suspension was also driven by concern about unflattering comments Mr Huang had sent about colleagues and management. The tribunal found the suspension unfair because there was no one to protect by separating him from work and because suspension was not a neutral act in the circumstances.
The tribunal also found the investigation and disciplinary process flawed. The investigator made findings of fact that the messages were unwanted and that A had been harassed and intimidated, rather than leaving those issues for the disciplinary decision-maker. The dismissal letter then relied on the investigator’s findings, and the appeal did not cure those defects. The tribunal further found that the messages were largely exchanged between friends, mostly before Mr Huang became A’s line manager, that A never told him the messages were unwelcome, and that A herself sent a similar volume of messages. On that basis, the tribunal rejected contributory fault and declined any Polkey reduction or ACAS uplift.
Remedy was assessed on the basis of one year’s loss. The tribunal accepted Mr Huang’s mitigation evidence, including job searches through agencies and online platforms, and found that his loss should be calculated by reference to annual pay of £50,983 with additional accepted items. It awarded a basic award of £1,016 and a compensatory award of £42,394.96, leading to a total of £52,351.60 after grossing up.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed and ordered the respondent to pay £52,351.60 in total. It found no reduction for contributory conduct and no Polkey reduction. | Upheld | — | £52,352 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £52,352
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £1,016
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £42,395
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
10 references- s.98(2) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- Burchell test
- Polkey
- section 122 ERA 1996
- section 123 ERA 1996
- section 207A TULR(C)A 1992
- ACAS Code of Practice 1
- Mezey v South West London and St George's Mental Health NHS Trust
- Nelson v British Broadcasting Corporation (No 2)
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.