Cases6015000/2024

Claimant v Heirs of Sanpa Limited

4 March 2025Before Employment Judge McCooeyReadingremote video

Outcome

Claimant fails£796

Individual claims

Unfair Dismissalfailed

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.

Breach of Contractfailed

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.

Otherfailed

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.

Othersucceeded

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

ERA 1996 s.1ERA 1996 s.92

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