Claimant v Impact Recruitment Services Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
The majority found the claimant did not resign but was dismissed by the first respondent on 8 April 2020 when issued a P45. The dismissal was based on a mistaken belief she had resigned. This was not a potentially fair reason and the dismissal was both procedurally and substantively unfair.
The tribunal found the claimant's claim for notice pay against the first respondent was well founded, meaning she was entitled to notice pay which had not been paid.
The tribunal found the claimant was not subjected to less favourable treatment because of age. The tribunal found any antipathy between the claimant and Ms Smet/Mr Hiles was due to a non-age related incident at a Christmas party in 2018. The tribunal found comparators would have been treated the same way and that age played no part in any treatment.
Claim that claimant was not given a permanent contract in July 2019. Tribunal found Ms Smet was not an appropriate comparator as she had better skills (English, office work). Treatment was not less favourable and in any event not because of age.
Claim about being asked to lift heavy items on return from surgery in August 2019. Tribunal found this was not less favourable treatment as a hypothetical younger comparator would have been treated the same in the absence of a doctor's note. In any event, treatment was not because of age.
Claim about alleged comment by Ms Smet that claimant was 'too slow and too old'. Tribunal found a confrontation occurred but that a hypothetical comparator would have been treated the same. Any comments were not because of age but due to personal antipathy.
Claim about removal from shift after 26 March 2020 and not being offered furlough. Tribunal found a hypothetical comparator would have been treated exactly the same and treatment was not because of age.
Claim that dismissal was age discrimination. Tribunal found a hypothetical comparator would have been treated exactly the same (mistaken belief of resignation) and treatment was not because of age.
Facts
The claimant was a Polish warehouse operative employed by a recruitment agency (first respondent) and placed at the second respondent's premises from January 2018. During the March 2020 Covid-19 lockdown, the majority of agency staff were stood down. On 1 April 2020 there was a disputed telephone conversation about whether the claimant resigned. The first respondent believed she had resigned and requested her P45; the claimant denied this. She was sent her P45 on 8 April 2020. The claimant also brought age discrimination claims relating to treatment by colleagues at the second respondent's premises.
Decision
The majority found the claimant did not resign but was dismissed on 8 April 2020 based on a mistaken belief she had resigned. This was not a potentially fair reason and the dismissal was unfair. The tribunal unanimously found all age discrimination claims failed, finding that any less favourable treatment was not because of the claimant's age but due to personal antipathy stemming from a 2018 Christmas party incident. Remedy to be determined at a further hearing.
Practical note
A mistaken belief that an employee has resigned does not constitute a potentially fair reason for dismissal under s.98 ERA 1996, and dismissal on that basis will be both procedurally and substantively unfair.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3305480/2020
- Decision date
- 27 October 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 4
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- professional services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Employment details
- Role
- Warehouse Operative
- Service
- 2 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No