A hospitality worker, who said he was wrongly sacked after failing to turn up at work and taking holiday without permission, has had his compensation claim dismissed - and instead told he owes his employer money.
After taking Courtyard Holdings Ltd to the Employment and Discrimination Tribunal in December, Mihai Sandru was ordered to pay back his former employer £76 after it emerged that he had added up his holiday pay wrongly. claiming that they were wrong to dismiss him summarily because he failed to turn up to work, taking holiday without the authorisation required in his contract.
Mr Sandru had claimed the business was wrong to dismiss him summarily because he failed to turn up to work, taking holiday without the authorisation required in his contract.
However, the Tribunal said that it found that Mr Sandru’s evidence was "simply not capable of being believed".
The Tribunal's Deputy Chair, Advocate Ian Jones, noted that Mr Sandru had accepted in his evidence that he had lied to his employer when he made a holiday request that was not submitted and that he lied at the tribunal about the detail of his holiday.
Advocate Jones said it was of even more concern that "Mr Sandru perpetuated those lies in his sworn witness statement" which was to be used as evidence before the Tribunal.
"He eventually conceded that he wasn’t telling the truth following questioning from the tribunal at the conclusion of his evidence," Advocate Jones said in his written judgment.
Pictured: Not only was Mr Sandru not owed any money by the respondent, but he owed Courtyard Holdings money in relation to holiday pay.
Mr Sandru also claimed he was owed £228 in relation to unpaid holiday pay but this was contested by the company, which said that Mr Sandru had been overpaid.
Mr Nick Le Cornu represented Mr Sandru during the Tribunal hearing.
In judgment, Advocate Jones said: "When Mr Le Cornu [who represented Mr Sandru] was taking me through the substance of the holiday pay claim, Mr Le Cornu realised and accepted that he had made an arithmetical mistake and indeed it was correct that not only was Mr Sandru not owed any money by the respondent but in fact it was correct that Mr Sandru owed Courtyard Holdings money in relation to holiday pay."
"It follows that the counterclaim as submitted by Courtyard Holdings succeeded and I therefore ordered that Mr Sandru pay Courtyard Holdings the sum of £76."
Comments on this story express the views of the commentator only, not Bailiwick Publishing. We are unable to guarantee the accuracy of any of those comments.
Once your comment has been submitted, it won’t appear immediately. There is no need to submit it more than once. Comments are published at the discretion of Bailiwick Publishing, and will include your username.
There are no comments for this article.