Case 3213259/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Dedushi v Renewi UK Services Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 3213259/2020
- Decision date
- 26 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Jones Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Dedushi
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr A Dedushi, was employed by Renewi UK Services Ltd and had a clean disciplinary record. The dismissal arose after an incident on 30 June 2020 involving Mr Blackholly, first in the canteen and later in the locker room. The tribunal found that the respondent investigated the allegation that the claimant had physically assaulted Mr Blackholly, suspended him on full pay, invited him to a disciplinary hearing, and ultimately summarily dismissed him for gross misconduct on 27 July 2020.
On the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal found that the reason for dismissal was misconduct. Applying the Burchell test and section 98(4) ERA 1996, it held that Mr Lee genuinely believed the claimant had slapped Mr Blackholly, that there were reasonable grounds for that belief, and that the investigation by Mr Keane was reasonable in the circumstances. The tribunal accepted that there was no CCTV in the locker room, but found that the absence of CCTV did not prevent the respondent from acting on the witness evidence and contemporaneous reports.
The tribunal also held that the decision to dismiss fell within the band of reasonable responses. It found that the respondent was entitled to treat the incident as gross misconduct, including because it involved physical violence and threats in the context of the respondent's disciplinary policy. The claimant's suggestion that his Montenegrin background affected the decision was not supported by evidence, and no race discrimination claim was before the tribunal.
On holiday pay, the tribunal found that the claimant had accrued 17 days' leave and taken 14, so 3 days remained due in principle. However, because he had been paid for the whole of July and was dismissed on 27 July 2020, the tribunal concluded that he had effectively already received payment covering the outstanding holiday entitlement and there was no unpaid holiday pay due.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal accepted that the claimant had accrued 17 days' annual leave and taken 14, so 3 days were due in principle, but found there was no outstanding holiday pay because he had already been paid through 31 July 2020 despite summary dismissal on 27 July 2020. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- Burchell test
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- Iceland Frozen Foods v Jones
- band of reasonable responses
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.