Mr J Okhagie v Tesco Stores Ltd: 3324567/2017
JUDGMENT
[1]The claimant’s complaint of victimisation is dismissed upon withdrawal. The claimant was unfairly dismissed.[3]Had the claimant not been unfairly dismissed, there was an 80 per cent chance that his employment would have been terminated fairly.[4]The claimant contributed to his dismissal by 75 per cent.[5]This matter is listed for a remedy hearing for 2 hours starting at 2pm on 22 January 2018. ORDERS Made pursuant to the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013[1]Remedy case management 1.1 The following orders are made on the initiative of the Judge in accordance with rule 29. The parties may apply to vary these orders should they wish to do so.[2]Disclosure of documents2.1 The parties are ordered to give mutual disclosure of documents relevant to the issue of remedy by list and copy documents so as to arrive on or before 22 December 2017. Case Number: 3324567/20172.2 Documents relevant to remedy include evidence of all attempts to find alternative employment: for example a job centre record, all adverts applied to, all correspondence in writing or by e-mail with agencies or prospective employers, evidence of all attempts to set up in self-employment, all pay slips from work secured since the dismissal, the terms and conditions of any new employment.[3]Statement of remedy/schedule of loss 3.1 The claimant is ordered to provide to the respondent and to the tribunal, so as to arrive on or before 22 December 2017, a properly itemised updated schedule of loss. The claimant is ordered to include information relevant to the receipt of any state benefits. The respondent is ordered to provide a counter schedule by 5 January 2018.[4]Bundle of documents 4.1 The parties are to agree a short bundle for use at the remedy hearing. The parties are to agree the content of the bundle by 5 January 2018. The parties are to ensure sufficient copies (at least two excluding their own) are brought to the tribunal for use at the hearing.[5]Witness statements 5.1 It is ordered that witness statements relevant to remedy are exchanged so as to arrive on or before 12 January 2018. CONSEQUENCES OF NON-COMPLIANCE[1]Failure to comply with an order for disclosure may result on summary conviction in a fine of up to £1,000 being imposed upon a person in default under s.7(4) of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996.[2]The tribunal may also make a further order (an “unless order”) providing that unless it is complied with, the claim or, as the case may be, the response shall be struck out on the date of non-compliance without further consideration of the proceedings or the need to give notice or hold a preliminary hearing or a hearing.[3]An order may be varied or revoked upon application by a person affected by the order or by a judge on his/her own initiative. REMEDY JUDGMENT 1. The claimant having been unfairly dismissed by the respondent, the respondent is ordered to pay the claimant the total sum of £1,184.10 made up as follows: Basic award £2,444.54 Less 75% contributory conduct (£1,833.40) £ 611.14 Compensatory award £11,459.16 Less 80% Polkey reduction (£9,167.33) £2,864.79 Less 75% contributory conduct (£2,148.59) Case Number: 3324567/2017 £ 572.96 Total Award £ 1,184.10REASONS
[1]The claimant makes an application before me today for reconsideration of my decision to apply an adjustment to his compensation of 75% reduction for contributory conduct and 80% reduction for “Polkey”. I have explained the application process to the claimant and I read to him Rule 70 and 71 and also 72(1) of the Employment Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 Schedule 1. I have explained to the claimant that it is necessary for him to show why it would be in the interests of justice to reconsider any judgment and I have also explained to the claimant that I need to be satisfied that there is something other than no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked.[2]The claimant has made his application for reconsideration on the basis that he maintains that his representative, Mr Harrison, at the substantive hearing did not adequately represent him, did not adequately question witnesses or question witnesses appropriately and did not give the claimant a good reason to explain how he was helping the claimant.[3]I have refused the claimant’s application for reconsideration. On the basis put forward, I cannot be satisfied that there is any reasonable prospect of Case Number: 3324567/2017 the original decision being varied or revoked. Plenty of parties attend tribunals without representation and any concerns over representation are a matter between the individual and the representative for the most part. I cannot be satisfied that any concerns the claimant had with his representative had any bearing on the decision that I reached to award a reduction of 75% for contributory conduct and 80% in respect of the principles in Polkey.