Mr Satpal Singh v Beauty Base Ltd — 2023

Mr Singh started work on 7 November 2017. The tribunal found that when he left in February 2019 to take a longer holiday, there was an arrangement that he would return afterwards, so his employment was continuous for the purposes of the unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal relied on the role remaining vacant, the same payroll number, no P45, no application process, no right-to-work check, and the fact that he signed a new contract with a higher pay rate without those features negating continuity.

On unfair dismissal, the tribunal found that the respondent's stated reasons of mobile phone use and talking to colleagues were not the real reasons for dismissal. It found that Sana Mukhtar had promoted him only a few months earlier, that he had not been given a proper warning that disciplinary action would follow if the behaviour continued, and that the process consisted of a brief investigation, a short dismissal hearing, and an even shorter appeal. The tribunal held that the procedure was unfair and that even if the case had been treated as misconduct, a fair procedure would not have led to dismissal. It recorded that he had used his phone when he should not have done and had been over-conversational, but said those matters were not the true reason for dismissal and would only have supported a small contribution finding if relevant.

On age discrimination, the tribunal rejected the claim that the dismissal or the earlier complaints were because he was young. It found that the burden of proof did not shift under s.136 Equality Act 2010 because there was no evidence from which age discrimination could be inferred. It accepted that he had been asked to dust the ceiling, but found that this was a vindictive act by Richard rather than age-related; it found that putting bins out and running errands were not detriments and were not shown to be linked to age. The age discrimination claims were dismissed.