Case 3308936/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Piotr Mech v Global Chair Components Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 3308936/2023
- Decision date
- 30 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Warren Members
- Venue
- Norwich
- Panel members
- Mrs Gaywood, Mr Hayes
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Piotr Mech
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal at Norwich, sitting from 24 to 27 March 2025 before Employment Judge M Warren with members Mrs Gaywood and Mr Hayes, dismissed all of the Claimant’s complaints. The written judgment states that the complaints of unpaid wages, unfair dismissal, direct discrimination because of disability, disability related discrimination, and failure to make reasonable adjustments were not well-founded.
No written reasons are provided in the extracted judgment text, and no separate remedy or monetary award is recorded. The decision was approved on 27 March 2025 and sent to the parties on 30 April 2025.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Complaint described in the judgment as unpaid wages. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment records three disability-related complaints: direct discrimination because of disability, disability related discrimination, and failure to make reasonable adjustments. They were all dismissed as not well-founded. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Disability-related discrimination complaint, described in the judgment as disability related discrimination, dismissed as not well-founded. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments complaint, dismissed as not well-founded. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
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.