Mr M Mehmet [3301208/2021 “Claim 1”] Mrs Y Mehmet [3302603/2021 “Claim 2”] Mr A Cakmaktas [3302371/2021 “Claim 3”] Mrs Y Alican [3306458/2021 “Claim 4”] v Medsun Food Ltd — 2023

The tribunal held that the claims were in time, recorded that the redundancy payment claims and holiday pay claims were withdrawn, and dismissed the salary arrears claims because the claimants had been paid the agreed net cash wages. It found that the old payslips did not reflect the actual cash arrangement and that the later payslips were part of a correction process for PAYE/HMRC purposes rather than evidence of an unpaid wage balance.

Applying section 98 ERA 1996, the Burchell approach and the band of reasonable responses test, the tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claims of C1 Mr Mehmet, C2 Mrs Mehmet and C3 Mr Cakmaktas. It found that the dismissals followed the 16 November 2020 roof incident, that each claimant had been invited to investigation and disciplinary meetings, could be accompanied and could appeal, and that the decision-makers genuinely believed the misconduct alleged in the dismissal letters. On the separate notice claims, the tribunal found that C1 to C3 had lost any entitlement to notice because their conduct was a serious breach of contract.

C4 Mrs Alican's unfair dismissal claim succeeded. The tribunal held that the 4 December 2020 shopping incident did not justify summary dismissal on the reasoning adopted by Ms Winsor because she did not properly address whether C4 had a contractual entitlement to take goods or whether C4 honestly believed that the arrangement continued. The tribunal also recorded that there was a 50% Polkey chance of dismissal even after a fair process, and that any basic award would be reduced by 100% under section 122(2) ERA 1996 and any compensatory award by 100% under section 123(6) ERA 1996. The tribunal left remedy, including reinstatement or re-engagement, to a later hearing and awarded C4 £6,000 for notice pay.