Ex-John Lewis employee owed much more than an apology, Tribunal rules

Monday 20 August 2018

An ex-employee of John Lewis has been awarded over £3,000 after the company made "significant payroll errors" and behaved in a way that caused the Employment and Discrimination Tribunal "dismay."

After taking a significant amount of time off work due to illness between June 2016 and July 2017, Mircea Donciu was dismissed from his position on capability grounds - but he had been significantly underpaid in the period leading up to his dismissal.

He argued that he had been unfairly dismissed by John Lewis, which operates Waitrose - a claim which was scrapped after the court heard evidence from several witnesses. A discrimination claim was also struck out early on in the proceedings. But Mr Donciu also claimed that he was owed wages from the period during which he was ill, and that the underpayments had caused him difficulty. 

In summer 2016, Mr Donciu fell ill, and did not appear to recover between then and his dismissal, on 6 July 2017. Between 1 June 2016 and 30 June 2017, Mr Donciu was only able to work for a total of 45 days. He raised several complaints over this period.

He claimed that his employer and colleagues had made him ill and that his workplace was unsafe.

Mr Donciu also alleged that he was dismissed because the branch manager "had formed a personal dislike of him and other members of his family," after dismissing Mr Donciu's brothers.

Mr Damian Warman, whose role it is to oversee sick leave in the branches that he manages, said he felt he had done his best to support Mr Donciu during his illness, and the personal complaints brought against him by Mr Donciu were shocking and upsetting to him. He denied being involved with the decision to dismiss Mr Donciu, or bearing any ill will towards him. 

After not cooperating with the company's sick leave procedure, and refusing two management referrals for medical assessment, Mr Donciu was asked to complete a fitness to work checklist, which involved sharing a medical report with his manager. He did not consent to sharing this information, and so the process could not be completed. 

He was then invited to two meetings to discuss his capability, but did not attend either one, having been warned that this review could result in his dismissal. He was then dismissed on capability grounds, and chose not to appeal. 

After hearing evidence, the Tribunal dismissed the allegation of unfair dismissal, but ruled that Mr Donciu was owed £3,014.34 in wages.

Advocate Davies, who chaired the Panel, commented in her judgement: "We did express dismay at the conclusion of the hearing that such a large employer, which prides itself on its standards as an employer, would make such significant payroll errors over such a long period without taking the time to correct those mistakes when queries were raised."

"Not all employees will be as determined as Mr Donciu has been and we hope that steps are taken to make sure that, in so far as is possible, this does not happen again."

They also noted that it would be appropriate for the employer to offer Mr Donciu a full apology, and expressed surprise at the fact that, at the time, no financial compensation of any form, including interest on the outstanding payments, had been offered to him.