G E S Ltd

Case Summary

A security guard employed by the respondent at a shopping centre initially resigned on 11 June 2024 due to workplace issues. The respondent did not immediately accept the resignation and only formally accepted it on 5 July 2024 after the shopping centre management indicated they did not want the claimant to return. The tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed because the respondent failed to follow a fair procedure and did not properly invoke the "some other substantial reason" ground that might have been available.

The claimant was unfairly dismissed because the respondent failed to follow a fair procedure. Although the respondent could potentially have relied on some other substantial reason (third party pressure from the shopping centre management), it did not properly treat this as the reason for dismissal and instead relied on the claimant's earlier resignation email. The absence of any procedural fairness, investigation, consultation, or consideration of alternative work rendered the dismissal unfair.

Use these claim-type pages to compare this decision with other published tribunal cases, outcome patterns, and visible award data.

• •Whether claimant was constructively or ordinarily dismissed
• •Effective date of termination
• •Whether dismissal was fair or unfair
• •Whether respondent treated some other substantial reason as sufficient reason for dismissal
• •Breach of contract claim for notice pay
• •Unlawful deduction from wages

Case No: 2404812/2024 1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr C Freedman Respondent: G E S Limited HELD AT: Liverpool ON: 8, 9 & 10 April 2026 BEFORE: Employment Judge Johnson REPRESENTATION: Claimant: Respondent: Mrs G Freedman (claimant’s wife/lay rep) Mr Walker (litigation consultant) JUDGMENT The judgment of the Tribunal is that: (1) The complaint of unfair dismissal is well-founded. The claimant was unfairly dismissed. (2) The quantification of remedy in relation to the unfair dismissal complaint will be determined at a remedy hearing which will be listed for 1 day on a date to be confirmed to the parties. (3) The complaints of breach of contract and unlawful deduction from wages required determination of the effective date of termination in relation to the unfair dismissal complaint and now that has been identified as 5 July 2024, these two complaints will be determined at the remedy hearing referred to in paragraph (2) above. Case No: 2404812/2024 2 REASONS Introduction 1. These proceedings arose from events that happened during June and July 2024 when the claimant initially gave notice of his resignation as a security guard to his employer. This happened because of issues that occurred previously at his workplace. He was a security guard who was allocated to work at a Wirral shopping centre and where day to day management and direction happened from the centre management who were employed by a different company not connected with the respondent. 2. The respondent appeared unwilling to accept the claimant’s resignation and attempts were made to engage with the shopping centre and the claimant to see if a resolution could be found. The claimant eventually found out in July 2024 that the shopping centre management did not want the claimant to return to work there, and he was informed on 5 July 2024 that his resignation of 11 June 2024 had been acce…