Mr S Mavadia v WLMG Ltd — 2023

Mr S Mavadia, a mechanic employed from 12 July 2021, brought claims arising from bonus and pay issues, holiday pay, notice pay, and constructive unfair dismissal. The tribunal found his salary was £24,000 a year, that the bonus arrangement was performance-based and could reach £12,000 a year, and that there was no guaranteed £1,000 monthly bonus. It accepted that he was paid the £75 due for five vehicle health checks and a further £100 bonus in October 2021, so the unlawful deduction and related contractual pay complaints failed.

The key incident happened on 18 October 2021 at the Ruislip garage. The tribunal rejected the claimant's case that Mr Patel instructed him to siphon fuel using his mouth. It found instead that the claimant decided it was necessary to drain the fuel, asked where the pump was kept, was told where it was usually stored, and then chose on his own to start siphoning with his mouth when he could not find the pump quickly. The claimant swallowed fuel, went to hospital, and later raised the incident in messages to Mr Obali.

When the claimant returned to work on 8 and 9 November 2021, the tribunal accepted that Mr Obali was at Ruislip on at least one of those days and made sarcastic comments about a homemade fuel pump and about being careful not to drink fuel. It also found that the respondent had not carried out a formal investigation, and it disbelieved parts of the respondent's evidence about Mr Obali's presence on site. Even so, the tribunal concluded that the remarks were jokes, unprofessional and at the claimant's expense, but not conduct calculated or likely to destroy or seriously damage trust and confidence.

The unfair dismissal claim failed because there was no breach of the Malik term and therefore no constructive dismissal. The tribunal also rejected the section 100 ERA 1996 arguments: the claimant's absences were to go to hospital and then sickness absence, there was no serious and imminent danger, and the conduct complained of was not retaliation for raising a health and safety issue. The notice-pay complaint failed for the same reason. Holiday pay for 1.3 days was agreed between the parties, but the judgment did not state a cash amount and cancelled the provisional remedy hearing.