Case 3305702/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Robert Kleina v Polish Village Bread Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 3305702/2021
- Decision date
- 20 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tobin
- Venue
- Watford Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Robert Kleina
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Robert Kleina was employed by Polish Village Bread Limited from 4 January 2013 to 3 January 2021. The tribunal found that on 15 July 2020 Mr Piotr Tomicki instructed him to bring the BKW transport work in-house, and that Mr Kleina then sent the 20 July 2020 email cancelling the BKW contract from his work email address. The tribunal rejected the respondent's case that he had cancelled the contract without authority or falsified Mr Tomicki's name, finding instead that the email was transparent, included Mr Tomicki's name and phone number, and reflected the instructions he had been given.
After 21 July 2020 Mr Kleina was on sick leave supported by repeated medical certificates for stress and depressive reaction. The tribunal accepted that the respondent did not query the sick leave or investigate any alleged misconduct during the five months he was absent. When he returned on 4 January 2021 he was immediately handed a pre-prepared summary dismissal letter. The tribunal found there had been no meaningful investigation, no prior disclosure of allegations, and no proper disciplinary process or genuine appeal.
Applying s.98(4) ERA 1996 and the Burchell principles, the tribunal held that the claimant was unfairly dismissed. It found there were no reasonable grounds for the respondent's asserted belief and no investigation, and it considered the procedure and decision to dismiss to be outside the range of reasonable responses. The tribunal added a 20% uplift for breach of the ACAS Code of Practice, but also made a 20% reduction to both the basic and compensatory awards because, although the dismissal reason was found to be manufactured, Mr Kleina had worked for BKW while still employed and on sick leave in breach of his contract. No Polkey deduction was made. The tribunal also held the dismissal was wrongful because the conduct found did not amount to gross misconduct, and it recorded that the claimant's 17 days' accrued annual leave entitlement had been paid on 5 February 2021. A remedy hearing was to be listed, so no final monetary award was determined in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held the claimant was unfairly dismissed under s.94 ERA 1996. It found the dismissal reason was manufactured, there had been no genuine investigation or fair process, and it added a 20% ACAS uplift while also directing a 20% reduction to the basic and compensatory awards for contributory conduct. No quantified remedy was assessed in this judgment because a remedy hearing was to follow. | Upheld | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal held the claimant was wrongfully dismissed because the summary dismissal was not justified by gross misconduct and therefore amounted to dismissal without notice. No separate monetary figure was fixed in this judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment records that the claimant's 17 days' accrued annual leave entitlement was paid on 5 February 2021, so no separate holiday pay award was made in this decision. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
10 references- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- British Home Stores v Burchell
- West Midlands Co-operative Society Ltd v Tipton
- Foley v Post Office / HSBC Bank plc v Madden
- J Sainsbury plc v Hitt
- s.207A TULR(C)A 1992
- Polkey v A E Dayton Services
- s.122(2) and s.123(1) ERA 1996
- s.123(6) ERA 1996
- ACAS Code of Practice
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.