Claimant v Heirs of Sanpa Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the claimant was not unfairly dismissed by the respondent. The claim was not well-founded and failed on its merits following a two-day hearing.
The tribunal found the complaint of breach of contract in relation to notice pay was not well-founded. The respondent had not breached the claimant's contract regarding notice provisions.
The complaint that the respondent failed to provide written particulars of employment contrary to section 1 ERA 1996 was not well-founded and failed. The tribunal was satisfied the respondent had complied with its statutory obligations.
The tribunal found the respondent failed to provide written reasons for dismissal contrary to section 92 ERA 1996. No written reasons were provided to the claimant, constituting a breach of the statutory duty to provide such reasons upon request.
Facts
Mr De Oliveira brought claims against his former employer Heirs of Sanpa Limited alleging unfair dismissal, breach of contract in relation to notice pay, and failures to provide written particulars and written reasons for dismissal. Both parties appeared in person at a two-day remote video hearing. The claimant worked 40 hours per week at £12.44 per hour with net weekly pay of £398.08.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed the claims of unfair dismissal, breach of contract, and failure to provide written particulars. However, the tribunal upheld the claim that the respondent failed to provide written reasons for dismissal contrary to section 92 ERA 1996, awarding the claimant two weeks' pay totalling £796.16 net.
Practical note
Employers must provide written reasons for dismissal when requested under section 92 ERA 1996, even where the dismissal itself is found to be fair and other claims fail.
Award breakdown
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6015000/2024
- Decision date
- 4 March 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- other
- Represented
- No
Employment details
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No