Case 3204843/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Ruchaczewski v ISS Facility Services Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 3204843/2022
- Decision date
- 24 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Scott Members
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
- Panel members
- Ms T Jansen, Mr L Rylah
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Ruchaczewski
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dismissed both whistleblowing complaints. It found that the claimant's complaints of detriment for making a protected disclosure and automatic unfair dismissal for the same reason both failed. The claim for wrongful dismissal was also dismissed.
The tribunal did find that the claimant had been unfairly dismissed under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. However, it reduced the compensatory award by 100% under the Polkey principle and, in the alternative, by reason of contributory conduct under section 123(6) ERA 1996. It also reduced the basic award by 100% under section 122(2) ERA 1996.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Complaint of detriment on the ground of having made a protected disclosure under section 47B ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Automatic unfair dismissal complaint under section 103A ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Ordinary unfair dismissal under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 succeeded, but the compensatory and basic awards were reduced by 100%. | Upheld | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- s.47B ERA 1996
- s.103A ERA 1996
- s.98 ERA 1996
- s.123(1) ERA 1996
- Polkey principle
- s.123(6) ERA 1996
- s.122(2) ERA 1996
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.