Mr Thomas Reames v Sapphire Systems plc: 2301930/2016
| Judgment Date | 17 July 2018 |
| Citation | 2301930/2016 |
| Published date | 31 May 2019 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Breach of Contract |
Case No: 2301930/2016
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
SITTING AT: LONDON SOUTH
BEFORE: EMPLOYMENT JUDGE TSAMADOS
MEMBERS: Mrs R C Macer
Ms S J Murray
BETWEEN:
Mr Thomas Reames
Claimant
AND
Sapphire Systems PLC
Respondent
ON: 18th, 19th & 20th June 2018 (partly in chambers)
Appearances:
For the Claimant: In person
For the Respondent: Ms Hall, Consultant
RESERVED JUDGMENT
The unanimous Judgment of the Employment Tribunal is as follows:
1) The claimant was not unfairly dismissed
2) The claimant was not discriminated against because of religion or belief;
3) The claimant has not suffered unauthorised deductions from wages;
4) The claimant is not entitled to damages for breach of contract;
5) The above complaints are therefore dismissed;
6) The claimant’s complaint in respect of unpaid accrued annual leave is
dismissed on withdrawal.
Case No: 2301930/2016
2
REASONS
The Claim/Complaints
1. By a claim form received at the employment tribunal on 26th September
2016, the claimant brought the following complaints: constructive unfair
dismissal; discrimination on grounds of religion belief; entitlement to notice
pay; and in respect of various outstanding payments in respect of wages,
holiday pay and commission. In its response the respondent has defended
the claim in its entirety.
The Issues
2. A preliminary hearing on case management was held on 12th December
2016 b efore Employment Judge Sage at which she identified the issues.
These are recorded in detail in the Case Management Summary which is at
pages 29 to 31 of the main bundle.
3. Essentially these set out the following complaints: unfair dismissal based on
a constructive dismissal; direct discrimination on grounds of religion or
belief, namely his marriage to a Muslim; entitlement to unpaid annual leave
under the W orking Time Regulations 1998; and damages for breach of
contract in respect of failure to pay sick pay and commission (the sick pay
claim is also claimed as an unauthorised deduction from wages).
4. Judge Sage also made a series of case management orders, including
production of a schedule of loss, mutual disclosure of documents and
exchange of witness statements.
5. The claimant was also ordered to provide further details of his complaint of
discrimination because of religion and belief by 3rd January 2017 given the
lack of a particularisation within his claim form. The respondent was also
ordered to present an amended response by 17th January 2017.
6. The claimant provided the further details on 3rd January 2017 which can be
found at page 35 of the main bundle. This reveals the complaint is of
unfavourable treatment by Mr Tony Martin, the respondent’s Head of
Human Resources Operations, in the following regards: making deductions
from the claimant’s pay on several occasions for false reasons without
discussion or notice; undertaking a biased disciplinary investigation against
him; suspending him from work and withdrawing his IT access and
restricting him from communicating fellow employees; and dismissing him.
7. In his further details, the c laimant also requested disclosure of information
and documents essentially seeking comparative evidence as to the
treatment of other members of staff in respect of the alleged i ncidents of
less favourable treatment set out in his further details.
Case No: 2301930/2016
3
8. The respondent provided a response to the further and better particulars
which can be found at pages 36 and 37 of the main bundle. The respondent
essentially denied the unfavourable treatment by Mr Martin as alleged,
stating that deductions would have been made in conjunction with the
claimant’s manager and the disciplinary proceedings taken against the
claimant were justified.
9. The respondent replied to the claimant’s request for specific disclosure
providing its sickness policy but otherwise expressed its inability to respond
to what it considered to be unclear requests and its inability to provide
confidential and irrelevant information.
10. It became apparent during the hearing that the claimant was not happy with
the response to his request, but had not taken formal action in seeking an
order of specific disclosure from the tribunal.
11. The hearing was originally listed for three days commencing 29th August
2017. However, it was postponed at the respondent’s request due to non-
availability of one of its witnesses. It was only possible to accommodate a
further 3 day listing almost 10 months later.
Preliminary Matters
12. At the start of the hearing it was clear that the claimant had not fully complied
with the case mana gement orders. He had not produced a witness
statement and he wanted to admit additional documents which he believed
were not in the combined bundle. However, he admitted that he had not
had time to go through the bundle or even prepare because was busy
working. He also claimed not to have realised that he had to provide a
witness statement, although I pointed out that the orders were quite clear
and his own witness had produced one. He did exhibit a rather lax approach
to preparation for this hearing, which had initially been listed for t rial in
August 2017, was unfamiliar with the documents in the bundle and unable
to express his own case with particularity. However, we recognised and
took into account that the claimant is appearing in person.
13. In order to move matters on expeditiously ensuring that there could still be
a fair hearing for both parties, the tribunal made the following directions.
The claimant’s evidence in chief would stand as his details of claim at R1
14 to 15 and his further information as to his discrimination claim at R1 35
with further questions from me to draw out further details. He could also
rely on a handwritten document which summarised his various claims
(which was copied to the respondent and the tribunal). As to the additional
documents, I told him to go through the combined bundle and identify which
of his additional documents were not within it. I told him to make five copies
of the resultant additional bundle and to give one copy to the respondent
during our adjournment to read the witness statements and referenced
documents within the combined bundle.
14. We then adjourned to read. After one hour, the parties returned and it
emerged that the claimant had only made three copies of his additional
bundle, including one for himself. I explained to him that we need three
To continue reading
Request your trial