Alitex Ltd

Case Summary

The claimant, an installer of bespoke greenhouses, was dismissed procedurally unfairly as he was not notified of the real reason for dismissal and was not given the chance to present his version of events. The respondent conceded the procedural unfairness. The tribunal found the dismissal unfair but determined that a fair procedure would have taken six weeks, resulting in dismissal on 20 February 2025.

The tribunal found the dismissal procedurally unfair because the claimant was not notified of the real reason for dismissal and was not given the opportunity to present his version of events, which the respondent conceded. However, applying a Polkey reduction, the tribunal determined that a fair procedure would have been followed and the claimant would have been fairly dismissed after six weeks, resulting in a compensatory award limited to that period of lost earnings.

• •Whether the claimant was dismissed
• •Reason for dismissal - some other substantial reason and/or conduct
• •Whether dismissal was a fair sanction
• •Fairness of procedure - claimant not notified of real reason and not given chance to present version of events
• •Whether dismissal would have been fair in any event if fair procedure had been followed
• •Contributory fault of the claimant

1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Richard Pyman Respondent: Alitex LTD Heard at: Bristol (by CVP) On: 12 th and 13 th February 2026 Before: Employment Judge Clarkson Representation Claimant: Mr Mofatt, Lay representative. Respondent: Ms Brown, Solicitor. JUDGMENT The judgment of the Tribunal is as follows: 1. The complaint of unfair dismissal is well-founded and succeeds. 2. The Claimant’s employment would have ended on 20 February 2025 when the Claimant would have been fairly dismissed. 3. The Respondent shall pay the Claimant the following sums: (a) A basic award of £1584, three weeks gross pay. (b) A compensatory award of £2652. This is loss of earnings for six weeks, the time it would have taken for a fair process to be carried out. REASONS INTRODUCTION 1. This claim is brought by the Claimant, Mr Pyman, against his former employer Alitex LTD. The Claimant was an installer of bespoke greenhouses, for the Respondent in their company of approximately 75 people. 2. The Claimant attended the hearing and gave evidence with the assistance 2 of his lay representative. On behalf of the Respondent, Mr Hancock the managing director attended and gave evidence as did Mrs Hall, the brand director and Mr O’Leary the installation manager. 3. There was a bundle of 164 pages that had been agreed between the parties. This exceeded the hundred pages provided for in the case management directions. Having considered the evidence within the bundle and the Respondent’s application permission was given for the entire bundle to be considered for the hearing along with the three witness statements on behalf of the Respondent and the Claimant’s witness statement. 4. The claim was heard on the 12 th and 13 th of February 2026 via CVP. The Claimant and the three witnesses for the Respondent gave oral evidence, adopted…