Case 6028053/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Jake Pick v Rjd Air Conditioning Services Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 6028053/2025
- Decision date
- 7 January 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Brown REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Leicester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Jake Pick
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningReserved judgment by Employment Judge L Brown at Leicester. The tribunal found the unfair dismissal complaint well-founded: the respondent carried out no investigation and no disciplinary process before instantly orally dismissing the claimant, which fell outside the range of reasonable responses (per Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd v Hitt). No Polkey reduction was made because the respondent's case had been that the claimant resigned. Contributory fault and any ACAS uplift were left to a future remedy hearing. The unauthorised deductions claim succeeded for two days' work (5 and 7 May 2025) at £309.10 gross. The holiday pay claim succeeded for 3.33 days at £514.65 gross. Under s.38 Employment Act 2002, the tribunal awarded two weeks' gross pay (£1,545.50) for the respondent's failure to provide a written statement of employment particulars (not four weeks, given the size of the employer). Detailed directions for a remedy hearing were given.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Liability only judgment; remedy adjourned. Tribunal found no investigation or disciplinary process; instant oral dismissal outside band of reasonable responses. Polkey reduction not made. Contributory fault and ACAS uplift left to remedy hearing. PDF text was truncated; confidence reduced accordingly. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Two days' work not paid for 5 and 7 May 2025; gross sum £309.10 based on weekly pay £772.75. | Upheld | — | £309 |
| Holiday pay | 3.33 days annual leave under regulations 14(2)/16(1) Working Time Regulations 1998; gross sum £514.65. | Upheld | — | £515 |
| Other | Section 38 Employment Act 2002 award for failure to provide a written statement of employment particulars; two weeks' gross pay (not four). | Upheld | — | £1,546 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,369
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
7 references- s.98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Sainsbury's Supermarkets Limited v Hitt [2003] IRLR 23
- Polkey v A. E. Dayton Services Ltd [1987] UKHL J1119-2
- Gestmin SGPS S.A. v Credit Suisse [2013] EWCA 3560
- regulation 14(2) Working Time Regulations 1998
- regulation 16(1) Working Time Regulations 1998
- section 38 Employment Act 2002
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.