Mr. S Polanski v Impact Ducting Sales Ltd — 2026

Mr S Polanski worked for Impact Ducting Sales Ltd as a General Fabricator/Sheet Metal Worker Welder. In April 2024 the Respondent told affected employees that it had been incorrectly calculating holiday pay by not including overtime, that holiday pay would be calculated correctly going forward, that employees would receive a 3% pay increase, and that an attendance bonus would be replaced by an hourly pay uplift. The tribunal accepted that the Claimant was given the option either to accept the revised attendance-bonus arrangement or remain on his existing attendance-bonus terms, while still receiving the 3% pay rise. It rejected the Claimant’s characterisation of that position as an ultimatum.

The direct race discrimination claim, based on Polish nationality, was dismissed. The tribunal found that the alleged ultimatum was not made out, that the Respondent’s wish to discuss the grievance face to face followed its grievance procedure and external HR advice, that the grievance was not ignored, and that the reference to the Claimant’s absence as unauthorised and unpaid reflected the Respondent’s position that he had not returned to work or provided a fit note. The tribunal found no facts from which it could infer that nationality was the reason for the treatment complained of. The harassment allegations concerning an email of 12 April 2024 and a letter of 23 April 2024 were also dismissed because the tribunal found the words relied on were not unfair, humiliating, false or derogatory in the way alleged, did not have the required purpose or effect, and were not related to nationality.

The whistleblowing detriment claim was dismissed. The Claimant relied on communications about the holiday pay calculation and his grievance or exit-package correspondence, but the tribunal found that they did not amount to protected disclosures. It found that the communications did not disclose information tending to show fraud, that the Claimant could not reasonably believe fraud had occurred where the Respondent itself had raised the holiday-pay error, and that the communications were not made in the public interest. The tribunal also found that the disciplinary process had not been invoked; the Respondent had warned that disciplinary action might follow if unauthorised absence continued without a fit note, and that warning was not materially influenced by any alleged protected disclosure.

The constructive unfair dismissal complaint was dismissed. Apart from the accepted holiday-pay miscalculation, the tribunal found that the matters relied on either did not occur as alleged or were reasonable responses to the Claimant’s refusal to attend grievance meetings and his unauthorised absence. It held that the holiday-pay miscalculation was an inadvertent mistake, raised by the Respondent and addressed going forward, and did not objectively amount to a breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence. It also found that the Claimant resigned because of the proposed contractual changes and concern about potential disciplinary action for absence, not because of the holiday-pay issue.