Get in Touch
- About Us
- Employee Services
- Questionnaire
- Contact
- Locations
- Dismissal
- Whistleblowing Law
- Discrimination
- Equal Pay
- Bullying and Harassment
- Family Friendly Rights
- Disciplinary and grievance hearings
- Contracts
- Transfer of Undertakings
- Agency workers and part time workers
- Privacy at work
- Constructive dismissal
- Resignation letter templates
- Health and Safety at Work
- Locations
- Case Studies
- News
- FAQ
- Contact
A recent Employment Tribunal (ET) has ruled that it does have jurisdiction to hear a case brought before it by Karim Pabani, a former finance director of ESS Support Services, which is a Kazakh subsidiary of the FTSE 100 caterer Compass Group.
Mr Pabani lodged a claim of unfair dismissal against Compass Group after he was dismissed by Compass’ general counsel Mark White and its human resources directory Jane Kingston. He claims that the dismissal was due to allegations made of corruption, including the falsifying of accounting records, and the alleged bribing of at least two Kazakhstan government officials with US university fee payments and family holidays in Dubai. It should be noted that in its dismissal letter, the company said that the allegations had been found to be unmerited.
Compass Group had attempted to block having the case heard in the UK. Judge Fowell, who heard the case wrote:
“The dismissal took place in the UK, to a UK citizen and resident. In deciding that claim it is not relevant to decide whether the whistleblowing allegations are true; the focus is on whether they were made in good faith and that the claimant had reasonable grounds to believe that the respondent had committed a relevant breach. These allegations were all explored in the UK … Accordingly I find the claims have a stronger connection with the UK than Kazakhstan.”
In response, a spokesman for Compass Group stated that they were considering their options.
They have also been quoted as saying: “Compass Group is aware of the allegations which have been made by Mr Pabani in the claim which he has submitted to the employment tribunal and is vigorously defending this claim.”
A further update will follow the outcome of the ET.
Whilst every effort has been made to maintain accuracy throughout this article, Nationwide Employment Lawyers cannot accept responsibility or liability for any errors. This article is intended for guidance purposes only and does not constitute specialist legal advice. Nationwide Employment Lawyers accept no responsibility or liability whatsoever for any action taken or not taken in relation to this article and recommend that appropriate legal advice be taken in all circumstances.
