Claimant v Sabtina Limited

The tribunal found the reason for dismissal was not gross misconduct but rather that the respondent simply wanted to get rid of the claimant having stripped him of duties. The tribunal found the respondent did not have a genuine belief in gross misconduct, did not conduct a reasonable investigation, and the dismissal was clearly procedurally unfair with total breach of ACAS Code – no notification of charges, no disciplinary hearing, no appeal.

The tribunal found the claimant had a contractual right to roll over unused holiday entitlement year on year from 1987, supported by contemporaneous documentation showing requests refused and agreement to pay in lieu as needed or at retirement. Tribunal found approximately 698 days accumulated (exact figure to be confirmed). Award amount to be determined subject to tax and NI.

The tribunal found that while the claimant's response pointed out the respondent had not given details of allegations, the actual wording used did not constitute a specific request for written reasons for dismissal as required by s.92 ERA 1996 following guidance in H T Greenwood Limited v Miller.

The claimant accepted that the reason for dismissal was not redundancy and consequently the claim for redundancy payment was not pursued and dismissed.

The claimant had been paid his notice pay and consequently this claim was dismissed.

Contractual inflation-linked pay adjustment had been paid to the claimant and consequently this claim was dismissed.

Outstanding expenses claim of £11,946.96 accepted as properly incurred but judgment reserved pending further submissions on whether reimbursement would breach sanctions regime and potentially constitute a criminal offence. Tribunal expressed preliminary view it would be wrong to order reimbursement if payment breaches sanctions.