Case 4107570/2017 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Michael Ventesei v Limited (in Liquidation) — 2019
- Case reference
- 4107570/2017
- Decision date
- 8 January 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ian McPherson
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Michael Ventesei
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal had previously found that the claimant’s complaints of unfair dismissal and unlawful harassment on the grounds of race succeeded, with remedy reserved. At this remedy hearing it awarded compensation for unfair dismissal comprising a basic award of £2,934 and a capped compensatory award of £30,000. The compensatory award included a 25% uplift because the respondents had unreasonably failed to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice by repeated failures to address the claimant’s grievances.
For the race harassment claim, the tribunal awarded £5,000 for injury to feelings and £521.64 interest under the discrimination interest regulations, calculated from 20 September 2017 to 8 January 2019. It separately found that the claimant had made a qualifying protected disclosure and suffered detriment in consequence of that disclosure, awarding £6,000 for injury to feelings for that detriment but no interest because it considered it had no power to award such interest under the discrimination interest regulations.
The tribunal also found that, at termination, the claimant had 5 days of accrued but untaken annual leave and awarded £455.31 for unpaid holiday pay, treating the failure as an unlawful deduction from wages. The notice pay complaint was dismissed following withdrawal by the claimant. The grand total compensation payable was £44,913.95.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Liability had already been found in the judgment dated 20 July 2018; this judgment determined remedy and applied a 25% ACAS uplift to the compensatory award, subject to the statutory cap. | Upheld | — | £32,934 |
| Harassment | The tribunal described this as unlawful harassment on the grounds of race contrary to section 26 of the Equality Act 2010. Interest of £521.64 was also awarded on the injury to feelings award. | Upheld | Race | £5,000 |
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal found that the claimant made a qualifying protected disclosure and suffered detriment in consequence of having made it. | Upheld | — | £6,000 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found 5 days accrued but untaken annual leave at termination and treated the failure to pay it as an unlawful deduction from wages. | Upheld | — | £455 |
| Breach of contract | The notice pay complaint was dismissed under Rule 52 following withdrawal by the claimant; the revised Schedule of Loss stated that he did not insist on notice pay because the unfair dismissal basic award would compensate him for what would have been notice pay. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £44,914
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £2,934
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £30,000
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
10 references- Sections 94 and 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- Section 207A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- Sections 119 and 227 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- Sections 123 and 124(1ZA) of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- Section 26 of the Equality Act 2010
- Sections 119 and 124 of the Equality Act 2010
- Section 43B of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- Section 47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- Sections 13 and 23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- Rule 52 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.