Nelipak Elsham Ltd

Case Summary

Mr Samuel Burton, a Maintenance Technician, claimed constructive unfair dismissal and unlawful deduction from pay against Nelipak Elsham Ltd, a packaging services supplier to the pharmaceutical industry. The tribunal found both claims were not well-founded and dismissed them, accepting that the claimant's candid admissions supported dismissal of the pay claim.

The tribunal found that the claimant had not established his claims as well-founded on the balance of probabilities. The claimant made candid and open admissions during the hearing which led to dismissal of his Section 13 ERA claim for unlawful deduction from pay.

• •Constructive unfair dismissal under Section 95(1)(c) and 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
• •Unlawful deduction from pay under Section 13 ERA
• •Whether there was a breach of contract entitling the claimant to resign
• •Whether pay deductions were lawful

Case No.6038744/2025 1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr Samuel Burton Respondent: Nelipak Elsham Ltd HELD AT: Leeds (By Video Link) ON: 17 April 2026 BEFORE: Employment Judge R S Drake REPRESENTATION: Claimant: Respondent: In Person Mr D Bunting (of Counsel) RESERVED JUDGMENT 1. The Tribunal finds that the Claimant has not established his claims as well founded and therefore dismisses his complaints of - 1.1 Constructive Unfair Dismissal under Sections 95(1)(c) and 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (“ERA”); – and – 1.2 Unlawful deduction from pay contrary to Section 13 ERA. 2. There are no other Orders made save that: because the decision has been reserved, I recognise the parties will value and have indeed asked for production of full reasons in writing under Rule 60(2) of the Employment Tribunals Procedure Rules 2024 (as amended) (“the Rules”); Case No.6038744/2025 2 REASONS Introduction 3. I refer to the parties and witnesses by initials (for ease of reference) and to documents in the mostly agreed evidence bundle as page numbers (P1 to P278 etc). I heard oral testimony and read written statements from the following:- i) The Claimant –“C” ii) Mr Rio McWilliams (“RM”) – C’s work colleague; iii) Mr D Glenn (“DG”) – another work colleague of C; iv) Ms Thais Dalcomuni Vicente (“TDV”) – C’s partner;; v) Ms Gorina Casap (“CC”) – One of R’s HR Business Partners; vi) Mr Craig Greer (“CG”) – one of R’s Manufacturing Managers and line manager of C at the relevant time; Of the above, only C himself, CC and CG gave oral testimony to the extent that their statements could be exposed to the scrutiny of cross examination. The other witness were not present, so I had to advise C that, though I could admit their statements as the testimony they would give if present, I cou…