Case 3205230/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Amanuel Ghebrehiwt v Wilson James Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 3205230/2021
- Decision date
- 26 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Peter Wilkinson
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Amanuel Ghebrehiwt
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was employed as a Customer Service Security Officer and was summarily dismissed on 11 March 2021. He brought claims for unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal, and an accrued holiday pay claim which was resolved by agreement. The respondent said the dismissal was for conduct, namely absence from work without authorisation from 27 January to 4 March 2021.
The tribunal found that the claimant accepted he had not sought authorisation for his absence, while maintaining that he did not need it because he was caring for his mother. The tribunal rejected his suggestion that there had been a conspiracy to dismiss him and found no evidence that contact records had been fraudulently altered. It found that the respondent had reasonable grounds for believing the claimant was absent without authority and had carried out a reasonable investigation and fair procedure.
The tribunal considered the claimant's argument about time off for dependants under section 57A ERA 1996, although no automatic unfair dismissal claim had been brought. It found that the provision did not entitle the claimant to take unauthorised time off to provide ongoing care in the circumstances of the case, and that the period claimed would not be a reasonable amount of time off. The tribunal concluded that the respondent was entitled to treat the unauthorised absence as gross misconduct and that dismissal fell within the band of reasonable responses.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the dismissal was for conduct, followed a reasonable investigation and procedure, and fell within the band of reasonable responses. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The claim for wrongful dismissal in breach of contract, based on non-payment of notice, was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The accrued but unpaid holiday pay claim was resolved by agreement after the respondent accepted that the claimant had been underpaid his holiday entitlement and agreed to pay it forthwith; no amount is stated. | Settled | — | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- s.98 ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- British Home Stores Ltd v Burchell
- range of reasonable responses
- Iceland Frozen Foods Ltd v Jones
- Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd v Hitt
- s.57A ERA 1996
- Qua v John Ford Morrison Solicitors
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.