Employment Appeal Tribunal Upholds Dismissal Ruling in Nestle Case
The EAT has dismissed an appeal against a Nestle unfair dismissal ruling, confirming 100% deductions for contributory conduct and procedural fairness.
• public
Tribunal Confirms Findings Against Former Employee
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has handed down its judgment in the case of Jarosinski v Nestle UK Ltd, dismissing the appellant’s challenge to an earlier decision. The case centred on claims of unfair dismissal and the validity of procedural steps taken by the employer during legal proceedings.
Mr Michal Jarosinski was dismissed by Nestle UK Ltd in December 2020. An Employment Tribunal previously found that while the dismissal was procedurally unfair, the appellant was 100% responsible for his own dismissal. Consequently, the tribunal applied a 100% reduction to both his basic and compensatory awards, citing contributory fault and the fact that he would have been dismissed in any event had a fair procedure been followed (a Polkey reduction).
Procedural Arguments Rejected
The appellant had argued that the respondent failed to serve a formal ET3 response for his second claim, suggesting this constituted a fundamental jurisdictional defect. However, the EAT found that the tribunal had correctly permitted the respondent to defend both claims using a consolidated response. The judge noted that the appellant's argument was a highly technical one, lacking substantive merit, and that he had effectively waived his right to complain by actively participating in the hearing.
Justification for 100% Deductions
Regarding the compensation awards, the EAT examined whether the tribunal had erred in applying a 100% reduction for contributory fault and a 100% Polkey reduction. The EAT ruled that the tribunal’s reasoning was clear when read as a whole.
The findings highlighted that the appellant was unrepentant regarding his hostile views towards management. The tribunal was entitled to conclude that a fair procedure would not have altered the outcome, as the appellant would not have departed from his intransigent position. Furthermore, the EAT clarified that making both a Polkey deduction and a contributory fault deduction did not constitute double counting, as the two assessments addressed different legal principles.
Read the entire judgment here: Jarosinski v Nestle UK Ltd [2026] EAT 129
