Case 8000049/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Member Mrs F Paton Tribunal Member Dr S Singh Mr P Samborek v Flexel International Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 8000049/2024
- Decision date
- 1 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Whitcombe Tribunal
- Venue
- Glasgow
- Panel members
- Mrs F Paton, Dr S Singh
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Member Mrs F Paton Tribunal Member Dr S Singh Mr P Samborek
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dismissed the complaint of discrimination arising from disability. It also dealt with a complaint of direct disability discrimination that had been added by amendment during the hearing; the extract records that this claim was withdrawn later in the hearing and that it was then dismissed.
The complaint of unfair dismissal succeeded. The extract does not set out the tribunal's detailed reasoning for that finding, but it records that oral reasons were given in the presence of the parties and that no request for written reasons was made. No remedy figure is recorded in this judgment.
The tribunal listed a separate remedy hearing in Glasgow for 20 September 2024, with a time allocation of one day, and said prompt applications for alternative dates or conversion to a video hearing would be sympathetically considered.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of direct disability discrimination, added by amendment during the hearing; the judgment states it was withdrawn later in the hearing and is now dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Liability succeeded; remedy was not determined in this extract and was listed for a later hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of discrimination arising from disability. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
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.