Claimant v Mecalac Construction Equipment UK Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
The claim for unpaid wages was struck out under rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024. However, the respondent agreed to pay 25.5 hours banked hours equivalent to £344.76 gross.
The claim for overtime pay was struck out under rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024.
The claim for bonus payment was struck out under rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024.
The claim for failure to provide payslips was struck out under rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024.
The tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed. However, a Polkey reduction was applied as the tribunal determined that had a fair procedure been followed, the claimant would have been fairly dismissed by the same point in any event by reason of redundancy, resulting in no compensatory award.
The claimant accepted he had been paid his notice pay. The claim for wrongful dismissal (notice pay) was therefore dismissed.
Facts
Mr Brzozowski brought claims against Mecalac Construction Equipment UK Ltd including unfair dismissal, unlawful deduction of wages, overtime, bonus, failure to provide payslips, and notice pay. The respondent agreed to pay 25.5 hours of banked hours totaling £344.76. The claimant accepted he had been paid notice pay. The case was heard as a preliminary hearing conducted remotely.
Decision
The tribunal found the dismissal was unfair but applied a 100% Polkey reduction, finding the claimant would have been fairly dismissed for redundancy anyway. The claimant was awarded a basic award of £1,027.52 but no compensatory award. Wage-related claims were struck out under rule 38, though the respondent agreed to pay £344.76 in banked hours. The notice pay claim was dismissed as the claimant accepted payment.
Practical note
Even where a dismissal is procedurally unfair, a 100% Polkey reduction may apply where the tribunal finds the employee would have been fairly dismissed by redundancy in any event, eliminating any compensatory award while preserving the basic award.
Award breakdown
Adjustments
Claimant would have been fairly dismissed by the same point in any event by reason of redundancy, resulting in zero compensatory award
Legal authorities cited
Case details
- Case number
- 1303067/2024
- Decision date
- 14 February 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- construction
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No