Mr M Leader v ES Cleaning Ltd: 1804636/2020
| Judgment Date | 16 March 2021 |
| Citation | 1804636/2020 |
| Published date | 29 March 2021 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Breach of Contract |
Case Number: 1804636/2020(V)
1 of 19 August 2020
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: Mr M Leader
Respondents: ES Cleaning Ltd
Heard: Remotely (by video link) On: 15, 16, 17 and 18 February 2021
Before: Employment Judge S Shore
NLM – Mr N Pearse
NLM – Mr J Howarth
Appearances
For the claimant: Mr A Willoughby, Counsel
For the respondent: Mr J Buckle, Counsel
JUDGMENT ON LIABILITY
The unanimous decision of the Tribunal is that:
1. The claimant’s claim of unfair dismissal (contrary to section 94 of the Employment
Rights Act 1996) was not well-founded. The claimant did not have two years’
continuous service as an employee at the date of his dismissal, so the Tribunal
does not have the jurisdiction to hear his claim.
2. The claimant’s claim of automatic unfair dismissal for the reason or principal
reason that he made a protected disclosure contrary to section 103A of the
Employment Rights Act 1996 was not well founded. He made a protected
disclosure on 21 May 2020, but we find that the protected disclosure was not the
sole reason or principal reason for his dismissal.
3. The claimant’s claim of automatic unfair dismissal for the sole reason or principal
reason connected to a relevant TUPE transfer contrary to regulation 7 of the
TUPE Regulations 2006 was not well-founded. The claimant did not have two
years’ continuous service as an employee at the date of his dismissal, so the
Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to hear his claim
4. The claimant’s claims of unauthorised deduction of wages in respect of:
4.1. Recovery of the cost of damage to a company vehicle; and
4.2. Holiday pay
Case Number: 1804636/2020(V)
2 of 19 August 2020
fail because the claimant did not set out in his evidence how his holiday pay claim
was calculated (i.e. failed to establish his holiday entitlement, how many days’
holiday he had taken and how many outstanding days he was entitled to). The
payment made by the respondent of £4,559.48 net on 18 November 2020 was
more than the remainder of his claim of unauthorised deductions. We did not find
that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction in respect of the
claimant’s company car in any event.
5. The claimant’s claim of breach of contract (failure to pay notice pay) is not well-
founded. The respondent did not breach the claimant’s contract of employment.
Although we find that, after the event, the claimant has shown to the satisfaction
of the Tribunal and the respondent that he was the owner of the Renault van, he
did not produce the evidence at the time he was dismissed, and we find that the
version of events that he (and Mr Cocker) produced were contradictory and
disingenuous at best and dishonest at worst.
6. Directions will be sent under separate cover concerning the respondent’s
intimated application for costs.
REASONS
Introduction
1. The claimant was employed as a Sales Director by the respondent from 1 February
2020 until 1 June 2020, which was the effective date of termination of his
employment on summary dismissal. The date upon which the claimant’s period of
continuous employment began was the subject of dispute between the parties. The
claimant started early conciliation with ACAS on 4 August 2020 and obtained a
conciliation certificate on the same date. The claimant’s ET1 was presented on 4
August 2020. The respondent is a contract cleaning company.
2. The claimant presented claims of:
2.1. Unfair dismissal (contrary to section 94 of the Employment Rights Act
1996);
2.2. Automatic unfair dismissal for the reason or principal reason that he
made a protected disclosure contrary to section 103A of the
Employment Rights Act 1996.
2.3. Automatic unfair dismissal for the reason or principal reason connected
to a relevant TUPE transfer contrary to regulation 7 of the TUPE
Regulations 2006.
2.4. Unauthorised deduction of wages (contrary to section 13 of the
Employment Rights Act 1996) in respect of:
2.4.1. Recovery of the cost of damage to a company vehicle; and
To continue reading
Request your trial