Judgment approved by the court Vaultex UK Ltd v Bialas the employment tribunal. However, Ms Clarke did not object to their introduction at our hearing as such, which we permitted. 38. The Wikipedia article is headed “Jew with a coin”. It states that the Jew with a coin is a good- luck charm in Poland, where images, or the figurine, of such a character are said to bring good fortune, particularly financially. The claimant showed us what he said is an example of such a figurine. It was a small figurine of a person in plainly traditional orthodox Jewish dress bearing a coin. The claimant told us that this is a figure with which he is familiar which he said forms part of his cultural heritage, and that he had introduced this material today in order to emphasise and explain to us why he formed a positive view of the contents of this particular post. He told us also of the positive associations which each of the references to different races and nationalities in the post had for him when he read it, or as he saw it for the respondent’s business, and why he believed posting this material to be a positive contribution to the respondent’s campaign. 39. We turn to our conclusions. 40. It is convenient to address first, the claimant’s argument premised on the tribunal having criticised the investigation process carried out by the respondent in one particular respect. He relied upon the discussion at [49] where the tribunal referred to the fact that the claimant had said that he had found the posting on a jokes website, and specifically on what he referred to as the “clean section” of that website. The respondent had accepted that the claimant had found this material on a jokes website, and then topped and tailed it, but the respondent had not at the time carried out further investigations, as requested by him, to ascertain whether the clean section was the particular part of the website where he had found it. 41. However, we note that the tribunal went on to say, at [50], that the procedure was “generally procedurally fair” and that “[n]o realistic challenge was made to the procedure.” It then turned to what it said was the ultimate question of whether the sanction of dismissal was within the band of reasonable © EAT 2024 Page 16 [2024] EAT 19