Claimant v Pan Asia GB Ltd

The tribunal found serious procedural failings: Mr Kim's 25 March 2021 email containing threats of 'dirty tricks' and creating 'unbearable' situations fundamentally tainted the process; and the actual decision-makers (Mr and Mrs Chung) were not the persons who conducted the disciplinary hearing (Mr Ji and Ms Chung), yet Mr Joo was not informed who would decide and the Chungs received at best an oral summary. Both failings alone would render dismissal unfair.

Although the tribunal accepted Mr Joo made protected disclosures in October 2020 and January 2021 reporting Director Kim's embezzlement, the reason for dismissal was unrelated to those disclosures. It was implausible that the Chungs would investigate and dismiss Director Kim then later punish the whistleblower. The actual reasons were Mr Joo's threats to report wrongdoing unless compensated, refusal to provide information, and ceasing to work.

Multiple alleged detriments were found: not appointing Mr Joo as Director, Mr Kim's threatening email, suspension, and unfair disciplinary process. However, none were done on the ground of protected disclosures. The reorganisation was a legitimate response to Director Kim's dismissal; Mr Kim's email, suspension and disciplinary process all arose from Mr Joo's subsequent misconduct (threats and refusing to work), unconnected to his earlier whistleblowing. The promotion detriment was also out of time by over four months.

Although Mr Joo had 12 years service entitling him to 12 weeks statutory notice, the tribunal found his actions in threatening the respondent to improve his negotiating position and failing to perform his duties were sufficiently serious to amount to gross misconduct justifying summary dismissal without notice.

The tribunal found no contractually binding agreement that Mr Joo would receive shares. Mr Chung's statement when Mr Joo joined was at best a general intention or expectation for the future if the business succeeded, not a specific enforceable promise. No written agreement existed and no witness suggested one did.

The respondent accepted Mr Joo was entitled to accrued holiday pay on termination and had not paid it. The tribunal calculated the correct sum based on gross pay (not net as respondent argued), using a leave year starting 1 November (anniversary of employment start), resulting in an award of £4,487.79 for 308/365 of 28 days at £189.94 per day.