Claimant v Solarlux Systems Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
Tribunal found no facts from which they could properly conclude that the claimant was treated less favourably because of his age. The redundancy situation in 2019 was genuine; the claimant could not do the surveyor's role; project work remained at low levels; pay decisions were based on market rates and business needs; and the disciplinary process was not influenced by age. There was no evidence supporting age as a factor in any treatment.
On all specific allegations (2019 redundancy, 2020 recruitment, 2020-2021 treatment by managers, pay reviews 2021 and 2023, dismissal 2023), the tribunal found either that the treatment did not occur as alleged, or that there were no facts from which discrimination could be inferred. Where explanations were given by the respondent, they were accepted as non-discriminatory and relating to legitimate business reasons.
The dismissal was procedurally unfair. The respondent failed to provide copies of key emails to the claimant before the disciplinary hearing; refused to postpone the hearing despite a fit note certifying him unfit for work due to work-related stress; held the hearing in his absence; the decision to dismiss was made by four people including investigators, not just the appointed disciplinary officer; and the decision had effectively been taken before the hearing. The tribunal found this was a 'text book unfair dismissal'. However, applying Polkey, the tribunal concluded the claimant would have been fairly dismissed on 19 September 2023 after a proper process, due to his dishonest deletion of emails and other misconduct.
The judgment does not separately address the wrongful dismissal / breach of contract claim, focusing instead on the unfair dismissal claim. No separate finding or award is recorded for breach of contract.
Facts
Mr Bachler, aged 60-64, was employed as Senior Project Manager/Surveyor from November 2015. In 2019, due to a genuine decline in project work, he accepted a demotion to Installation, Training and Support at reduced salary to avoid redundancy. Project work remained low throughout. In July 2023, following a pay review meeting where he was told he would not receive a pay rise, Mr Bachler accidentally sent an email from his dissolved company email address to his manager. Investigation revealed he had been using his work email extensively for personal matters including helping friends with building work, job hunting, and had deleted over 100 emails after learning of the investigation. He was summarily dismissed on 16 August 2023 following a disciplinary process held in his absence while he was signed off sick.
Decision
The tribunal found all age discrimination claims failed - there was no evidence age played any part in the 2019 redundancy, subsequent role changes, pay decisions, or dismissal. However, the unfair dismissal claim succeeded due to serious procedural flaws: failure to provide key evidence (emails) before the hearing, refusal to postpone despite medical certification of unfitness, decision-makers including investigators, and decision effectively pre-determined. Applying Polkey, the tribunal found the claimant would have been fairly dismissed on 19 September 2023 after a proper process, due to his dishonest deletion of emails and other misconduct. Loss limited to 8 August - 19 September, with 100% contributory fault and Polkey reduction.
Practical note
Even where dismissal is substantively justified by serious misconduct (dishonest deletion of evidence), employers must follow fair procedure including: providing all evidence to employee before hearing; postponing hearings where employee medically unfit; ensuring decision-maker independence from investigation; and keeping an open mind until hearing concludes - but a Polkey reduction of 100% will limit the remedy to the period a fair process would have taken.
Adjustments
Tribunal found that had a fair procedure been followed, the claimant would have been fairly dismissed on 19 September 2023. His period of compensable loss therefore ran only from 8 August to 19 September 2023. The tribunal concluded that even with a fair process, this employer would more likely than not have dismissed the claimant for his dishonesty in deleting emails to obstruct the investigation, combined with other lesser incidents of misconduct.
The claimant 100% contributed to his dismissal by his culpable conduct in his dishonesty, as outlined by the tribunal, effective as of 19 September 2023 when a fair process would have concluded.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3313419/2023
- Decision date
- 22 August 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 10
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- construction
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Senior Project Manager / Surveyor
- Salary band
- £50,000–£60,000
- Service
- 8 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister