A FOOD chemist has received nearly £19,000 after an employment tribunal found he was unfairly dismissed while caring for his wife who was battling breast cancer.

Andrew Ward had previously worked for food company Arthur Branwell, which is partly based in Braintree, and makes food additives.

Mr Ward worked at the company for ten years as its sole analytical chemist.

But things took a turn for the worse when Mr Ward’s wife was diagnosed with Stage 3 breast cancer in February 2019.

The tribunal heard looking after his wife became Mr Ward’s priority and “she did not want anyone else but him looking after her”.

Mr Ward had asked his employers for an unpaid sabbatical but this was refused.

However, he was told he could work from home 50 per cent of the time temporarily to care for her.

However, employers claimed “it became apparent that Mr Ward was doing very little work”.

The tribunal heard it was “deeply distressing” for Mr Ward to be accused of taking their money while doing no, or little, work and being a full-time carer for his wife, because he had asked for unpaid time off.

An email later added he was required to return to work and failure to do so could lead to termination of employment.

Mr Ward did not attend work and was sacked in August 2019 for alleged gross misconduct.

Company secretary Nigel Day is to said to have become increasing frustrated and the tribunal also heard the company felt Mr Ward “was lying to them”.

The tribunal was told Mr Ward received a “hostile and offensive” letter with “bombastic and petty language” sent by Mr Day which was “deeply distressing”.

The tribunal, led by Judge Paul Housego, ruled a “hostile” environment had been created and the sacking was an unfair dismissal.

The report said the dismissal was not a conduct dismissal and so was unfair. However, had a fair procedure been followed, a fair dismissal was “100 per cent certain”.

The tribunal stated: “Had Mr Day and Mr Southwell of AP Partnership had the common sense and humanity to see that this case would never have been brought.

“Instead, Mr Day wrote aggressive letters accusing Mr Ward of misconduct in not doing his job, intentionally refusing to attend meetings and taking the respondent’s money while not working for them and caring for his wife.

"Not unnaturally, Mr Ward takes exception to this as he had offered to stay at home without pay.

"The Respondent has been advised by a non solicitor advice company throughout.

"The correspondence from the Respondent was doubtless drafted by them.

"Their correspondence with the Claimant’s solicitor was reprehensible.

"The bombastic and petty language used, and the approach taken to this whole case by them, and by Mr Day, is regrettable."