Claimant v Sunbelt Rentals Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
No evidence was presented by the claimant in support of the claim for automatic unfair dismissal for making protected disclosures. The tribunal dismissed the complaint on this basis.
No evidence was presented by the claimant in support of the complaint of detriment for making protected disclosures under section 47B Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal dismissed the complaint.
No evidence was presented by the claimant in support of the complaint of health and safety detriments under section 44 Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal dismissed the complaint.
No evidence was presented by the claimant in support of the complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages in respect of bonus. The tribunal dismissed this element of the wages claim.
The tribunal found that the respondent made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages in respect of sick pay during the period 1 to 29 April 2023. This complaint was well-founded and the claimant was awarded the gross sum deducted.
The tribunal found that the complaint of constructive unfair dismissal was not well-founded. The claimant was not unfairly dismissed and this claim failed.
Facts
Mr Haynes brought multiple claims against Sunbelt Rentals Limited including automatic unfair dismissal for whistleblowing, health and safety detriments, constructive dismissal, and unauthorised deductions from wages relating to bonus and sick pay. The case proceeded to a five-day full merits hearing. No evidence was presented in support of most of the claims. The only successful element related to sick pay deductions during April 2023.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed all claims except the unauthorised deduction from wages for sick pay. The tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction of £2,478.93 from the claimant's sick pay for the period 1 to 29 April 2023. All other claims failed because no evidence was presented, including the constructive dismissal claim which was found not well-founded.
Practical note
Claimants must present evidence in support of their claims; failure to do so will result in dismissal even after a full hearing, though limited success can still be achieved on well-evidenced discrete issues like wage deductions.
Award breakdown
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2602525/2023
- Decision date
- 24 January 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 5
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- logistics
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister