Goreczna v David Currie and Pamela Currie... [2015] NIIT 01241_14IT (06 November 2015)

Goreczna v David Currie and Pamela Currie... [2015] NIIT 01241_14IT (06 November 2015)

The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed, not resigned, as the employer failed to clarify her intentions given her language and medical circumstances. The respondents did not follow statutory dismissal procedures, rendering the dismissal automatically unfair. The claimant was disabled under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 at the relevant time, but the dismissal was not discriminatory as a non-disabled employee unable to return for two years would have been treated the same.

Citation
[2015] NIIT 01241_14IT
Parties
Claimant: Aleksandra Goreczna; Respondents: David Currie and Pamela Currie, t/a Currie’s Spar
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
06 November 2015
Procedural Posture
Industrial Tribunal Employment / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claimant succeeded in claim for unfair dismissal; claim for disability discrimination dismissed.
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Disability Discrimination, Statutory Disciplinary and Dismissal Procedures, Compensation, Procedural Fairness
Employment Law Disability Discrimination Unfair Dismissal Statutory Disciplinary and Dismissal Procedures Compensation Procedural Fairness

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 30 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Aleksandra Goreczna

Claimant

David Currie and Pamela Currie, t/a Currie’s Spar

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Industrial Tribunal Employment / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant was dismissed or resigned
  2. 2 Whether statutory disciplinary and dismissal procedures were followed
  3. 3 Whether the dismissal was automatically unfair

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed, not resigned, as the employer failed to clarify her intentions given her language and medical circumstances. The respondents did not follow statutory dismissal procedures, rendering the dismissal automatically unfair. The claimant was disabled under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 at the relevant time, but the dismissal was not discriminatory as a non-disabled employee unable to return for two years would have been treated the same.

Court Disposition

Claimant succeeded in claim for unfair dismissal; claim for disability discrimination dismissed.

Orders

  • Respondents to pay claimant £4,809.25 as compensation for unfair dismissal.
  • Claimant's claim of disability discrimination dismissed.