Mr T E Gorczyca v Global Outdoor Media Ltd: 2203558/2021
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 25 April 2022 |
| Date | 25 April 2022 |
| Citation | 2203558/2021 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Published date | 10 May 2022 |
| Subject Matter | Unfair Dismissal |
Case Number: 2203558/2021
1 of 17
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: Respondent:
Mr T E Gorczyca v Global Outdoor Media Limited
Heard at: London Central (via CVP) On: 3 and 4 February 2022
Before: Employment Judge Fredericks
Appearances
For the claimant: Ms G Churchouse (Counsel)
For the respondent: Ms C Jennings (Counsel)
RESERVED JUDGMENT
The claimant’s claims are not well founded and are dismissed.
REASONS
Introduction
1. The claimant was employed by the respondent as a Multi Media Technician,
installing adverts in outdoor locations from April 2008 until his employment ended
in the summer of 2020. The respondent is one of the UK’s largest outdoor media
companies employing approximately 185 people.
2. The respondent asserts that the claimant’s was dismissed fairly on 26 August 2020
and that the claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct following his persistent
absence from work, and failure to return to work when instructed on 24 July 2020
and again on 5 August 2020.
Case Number: 2203558/2021
2 of 17
3. The claimant’s claim is broadly that his dismissal was unfair under s98 of the
Employment Rights Act 1996 because he was subjected to an unduly long
suspension for another matter from February 2020, on an unfair and unfounded
basis, such that the subsequent decision to dismiss him was unfair having regard
to equity and substantial merits of the case.
4. The claimant also claimed that his long suspension was a repudiatory breach of
contract which was not waived by the claimant (Counsel for the claimant expressed
the breach to have been ’accepted’) to the effect that he was constructively
dismissed on 23 July 2020 (when he made clear his intention to not return to work).
Further, the claimant claimed that he was owed wages for the period of time where
he was employed but did not attend work.
5. The claimant was represented by Ms G Churchouse of counsel, and gave evidence
himself in support of his claim. The respondent was represented by Ms C Jennings
of counsel. The respondent’s sworn witnesses were: Mr James Dapaah (Shift Lead
at the respondent); Ms Karen Gilbert (Commercial Manager at the respondent);
and Mr Adrian Lovejoy (Operations Director – Outdoor at the respondent).
6. I also had access to an agreed bundle of documents which ran to some 742 pages.
Page references in this document refer to the pages of that bundle.
Issues to be decided
7. There was a discussion at the outset about the relevant issues. Ms Jennings had
produced a list of issues, which was adopted, but had not appreciated that the
claimant intended to pursue a claim for constructive unfair dismissal. Those issues
were therefore added to the adopted list of issues.
8. The issues were:
a. Constructive unfair dismissal –
i. did the respondent breach clause 12 of the claimant’s contract of
employment when placing him on suspension between 12 February
2020 and 23 July 2020?
ii. did the suspension in (a)(i) above constitute a breach of the implied
term of mutual trust and confidence, and/or -
iii. breach an implied duty to conduct a disciplinary process promptly and
fairly?
iv. were any or all such breaches, if found, repudiatory in nature?
v. if so, did the claimant accept or waive any such breach(es)?
b. Ordinary unfair dismissal –
i. has the respondent shown that the claimant was dismissed for
reason of his conduct?
ii. did the respondent carry out such investigation into the claimant’s
conduct as was reasonable in the circumstances?
iii. did the respondent, at the time the decision to dismiss was taken,
have a genuine and reasonably held belief that the claimant had
committed the misconduct?
iv. did the respondent act reasonably in treating the misconduct as
sufficient reason to dismiss the claimant?
To continue reading
Request your trial