Claimant v Gravity Supply Chain Solutions Limited

The respondent conceded the dismissal was unfair on procedural grounds. The tribunal found wholesale failures to comply with the ACAS Code: no proper investigation, no meaningful meetings, reasons not articulated in advance, dismissal letter gave no right of appeal, and the grievance raised by the claimant was ignored. The tribunal rejected the respondent's assertion that poor performance was the reason, finding Mr Graham continued to perform well despite difficult personal circumstances.

The claimant suffered discrimination by association due to his wife's terminal cancer diagnosis. The tribunal found that Mr Parker's decision-making was influenced by assumptions about the impact of Mrs Graham's deteriorating disability on Mr Graham's ability to commit to the business. The tribunal identified several acts: reducing sick pay to SSP in September 2021, a meeting in a hospital car park to propose demotion and pay cut, non-payment of commission, and ultimately dismissal in December 2021. Each was less favourable treatment because of the associated disability. The tribunal found Mr Parker's actions from early 2019 onwards were informed by assumptions about Mrs Graham's ill health and its effect on Mr Graham.

The tribunal found that although two protected acts were accepted, the second played no material part due to its timing and the withdrawal of share-related allegations. The claimant did not establish that the detriments relied upon were because he had done a protected act.

The claim for SSP deduction in September 2021 failed on time limit grounds — the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to have brought the claim within the three-month time limit, particularly given the claimant's ongoing contact with the respondent. The claim for secondary commission in December 2021 succeeded on the merits — the tribunal found the commission was contractually due but the respondent failed to pay it. However, no separate award was made as this loss was already compensated as part of the discrimination award to avoid double recovery.

The tribunal found the employer had contractual power to place the claimant on garden leave under clause 21.3 of the contract, and that the effective date of termination was 30 May 2022, meaning the notice period was worked (albeit on garden leave). The claims of wrongful dismissal and breach relating to commission payments failed as they were compensated under other heads or not made out on the facts.

The claimant was owed 12 days' accrued but untaken holiday as at 1 December 2021, agreed by the respondent. The tribunal found that the respondent had calculated holiday pay only to the date of the notice letter and not through to the actual effective date of termination (30 May 2022). Recalculating under the Working Time Regulations, the claimant was owed a total of 23 days. Credit was given for a payment made in June 2022, leaving a balance due.