Case 6044148/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Kuchniewski v Blachford UK Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 6044148/2025
- Decision date
- 14 July 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Michael Butler
- Venue
- Nottingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Kuchniewski
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dismissed Mr P Kuchniewski's claims against Blachford UK Ltd for automatic unfair dismissal under section 104 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and health and safety detriment under section 44. He worked as a Quality Engineer from 27 May 2025 until his dismissal on 22 July 2025. His contract required 37 hours a week, and the handbook allowed employees to be asked to work additional hours to meet business needs.
His line manager, Mr Wayne Nortje, suggested staying an extra hour one day to catch up on emails. The claimant refused, referring to the effect on his health of working 60–70 hours a week in his previous job. He accepted that Blachford had never specifically asked him to work excessive hours. His concern rested on an assumption that he would be expected to work long hours after seeing others do so. He did not identify a specific right under the Working Time Regulations 1998 that had been infringed. Applying Mennell v Newell and Wright (Transport Contractors) Ltd, the tribunal explained that section 104 required an allegation of an infringement, rather than a possible or threatened future infringement.
The section 44 claim also failed. The claimant relied on dismissal as the detriment. The tribunal found no circumstances relevant to him that were harmful to his health or safety and no basis for his belief that he would be required or expected to work excessive hours. It held that the suggestion of an extra hour on one occasion did not fall within section 44.
The tribunal found that capability was the reason for dismissal. Weekly meeting notes, which the claimant accepted were accurate, recorded his failure to prioritise his work and the steps needed to improve. The tribunal accepted Mr Nortje's evidence that the claimant had not shown he could complete his tasks on time and found that dismissal was not because he had raised health and safety concerns. The respondent had paid one week's wages in lieu of notice; no monetary figure was stated. No tribunal award was made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal under section 104 Employment Rights Act 1996, alleging assertion of a statutory right under the Working Time Regulations 1998. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Health and safety detriment under section 44 Employment Rights Act 1996. The alleged detriment was dismissal. The taxonomy has no specific category for this claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.104 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Mennell v Newell and Wright (Transport Contractors) Ltd
- s.44 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.