Case 3306375/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Szymon Sieja v Kovacs Group Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 3306375/2020
- Decision date
- 27 September 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Michell
- Panel members
- Mr J Williams, Mr S Holford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Szymon Sieja
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Szymon Sieja worked for a third party via Kovacs Group Limited as a warehouse operative between 13 May 2020 and 11 July 2020. He presented an ET1 on 5 July 2020 after early conciliation, and the background to the judgment records claims including direct race discrimination/harassment and unlawful deduction of wages. At a preliminary hearing on 27 September 2021, the issues were refined and clarified, and parts of the claim were dismissed on withdrawal.
The final hearing took place remotely by CVP on 13 June 2022 before Employment Judge Michell, Mr J Williams and Mr S Holford. The claimant did not attend and gave no notice of his absence. The tribunal had no hearing bundle or witness statements, because the parties had not prepared them, although Mr Kovacs attended for the respondent and supplied some documents. The tribunal recorded that attempts to contact the claimant during the hearing using a telephone number provided by the respondent were unsuccessful.
In those circumstances, the tribunal concluded that the claims should be dismissed because the claimant was not actively pursuing them and had given no reason for his absence. The judgment states that each of the claimant's claims against the respondent was dismissed. The reasons also note, without affecting the outcome, that it might have been useful for the respondent to have tried to contact the claimant during the preceding eight months about whether he wished to pursue the case and how he intended to comply with directions.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The judgment refers in the background to 'direct race discrimination/harassment' but does not separate detailed findings for the individual allegations; this entry is extracted from that phrase. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | The judgment refers in the background to 'direct race discrimination/harassment' but does not separate detailed findings for the individual allegations; this entry is extracted from that phrase. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Expressly identified in the background and dismissed with the remainder of the claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.