Mr S Hontarenko v Plastic Technology Services Ltd — 2026

Mr S Hontarenko was employed by Plastic Technology Services Ltd as a process operator from 8 August 2022 until his dismissal for gross misconduct on 30 January 2025. The dispute arose after a workplace injury led to a series of fit notes in January 2025, including one stating he may be fit for work with workplace adaptations and later notes saying he was not fit for work. The tribunal found that the respondent proposed meetings to discuss adaptations and then, after receiving contradictory medical information, referred the claimant to occupational health and carried out an investigation through Mr Wallace, including witness interviews and enquiries through NHS channels.

The respondent dismissed the claimant for dishonesty in relation to sick notes and absence from work. The tribunal accepted that there were reasonable grounds for that belief, relying on the contradictory fit notes, the claimant’s failure to attend the arranged meetings, his failure to explain his position to the employer before the disciplinary hearing, and the occupational health material available at the time. It found that the respondent had carried out as much investigation as was reasonable in the circumstances, including speaking to relevant staff and obtaining further information about the fit notes.

On procedure, the tribunal accepted that the claimant had not been told of the dismissal outcome promptly because the dismissal letter was sent to an old address, but it treated that as causing delay rather than unfairness. It also noted that the claimant’s later references to depression and a fit note dated 23 January 2025 were not available to the respondent when it made the dismissal decision. Applying section 98 ERA 1996, the Burchell test, and the range of reasonable responses approach, the tribunal held that the dismissal was fair and dismissed the claim.