I wasn’t expecting my job to be on the line and to be suddenly homeless and have to leave the propertyRobin Pyke However, Mr Pyke denied it was a formal disciplinary meeting and described it as just a “chat in the kitchen”.In June 2016 the issues came to a head again after Mr Pyke was asked to take Mrs Gottschalk’s mother to the airport.Mr Pyke said he had plans for a Father’s Day lunch so could not do the airport trip.Mrs Gottschalk said: “She’s quite independent, my mum, she lives three minutes away. I had said ‘if there’s anything she needs please go and help her out’. I found it very rude and was embarrassed by it.”However Mr Pyke retorted: “I’m not contracted to work weekends and I had been told I wouldn’t be needed until the following Monday.”Eventually Mrs Gottschalk sent him a text stating “f–k off and get out my house”. At the tribunal, she said: “I’m not proud of it.”Mr Pyke said he was shocked as he thought the issue was “sorted”.He said: “I said in the text message ‘I’ve left you a voicemail’. I have great respect for her and there’s no reason I would speak to her in the manner that’s being portrayed. Millionaire banker Maximilian Gottschalk and his company director wife Jane outside the tribunalCredit:Vagner Vidal/INS He told the judge that towards the end of his employment he could not keep up with the work the millionaire couple, who spent time in England with their five children at Christmas and in the summer, demanded of him.He lived-in at the property and told the tribunal that the had dismissal made him homeless.”I think I have been loyal and given everything for 13 years”, he said. “At no point had I ever been questioned about my trustworthiness and I think I did the job absolutely to my full ability.”When things went wrong I tried to contact them to resolve it. Some of the issues were resolved, most weren’t. There was never any threat my job was going to be affected or on the line.” However, the Gottschalks said Mr Pyke had “breached their trust”. Mrs Gottschalk told the judge: “There were a number of emails that the house wasn’t ready in terms of basic cleanliness and issues with the garden, despite having other employees to help.”I don’t think that the role we presented was very difficult, looking after an empty house with occupants abroad.”Mrs Gottschalk said there were issues with “cleanliness in the house and his over familiarity”. Want the best of The Telegraph direct to your email and WhatsApp? Sign up to our free twice-daily Front Page newsletter and new audio briefings. I don’t think that the role we presented was very difficult – looking after an empty house with occupants abroadJane Gottschalk The Gottschalks also disliked Mr Pyke’s boyfriend staying at the property without their knowledge or consent, the panel heard.Mrs Gottschalk described one morning when she awoke at 6.30am to see a man on the property she did not know.”It would be nice to know who’s on the property when we’re there with the children, it’s just a courteous thing,” she said. Addressing Mr Pyke at the tribunal she said: “I had asked you to introduce him to me because I was uncomfortable with the situation.”The judge also heard the couple were unhappy that Mr Pyke had used their cars, including a Porsche, while they were away – although he claimed he had an arrangement with them.An email sent by Mr Gottschalk in January 2016 said he was “surprised” the cars were taken out for personal use.Mr Pyke said: “I never used their cars for personal use. I agreed with them I would use the cars to get them running.”There was an agreement to use them to get them running but other than that I would cycle everywhere.”The Gottschalks told the tribunal they had given Mr Pyke a “final warning” in March this year after a formal meeting following Mrs Gottschalk finding out about his financial arrangement to keep the dog. “A reasonable employer would have asked ‘why have you refused?’ or something like that before dismissing the claimant. I am satisfied the claimant was unfairly dismissed.”The reason for the claimant’s dismissal was because Mrs Gottschalk believed the claimant had been curt and had flatly refused to take her mother to the airport. I have attempted to determine whether this was the case.”The brevity of the text, in my view, does not signify a curt response. It is the nature of the text message that it is succinct, however the text message does not make reference to the voicemail.”I am satisfied the claimant left a voicemail in which he gave an explanation for his inability to take Mrs Gottschalk’s mother to the airport.” “I would have been as helpful as possible. I heard nothing for three hours so thought that was job done and dusted. The next I heard was from the PA asking if I’d seen the email. A housekeeper who drove his millionaire bosses’ Porsche and had his boyfriend to stay at their home was unfairly sacked because his employers did not follow the correct procedures, a tribunal has ruled.Robin Pyke fell out with Jane Gottschalk, who runs a successful coconut water company, after she discovered his boyfriend was staying at her £10 million mansion in Henley-on-Thames, without her knowledge.She is also alleged to have been annoyed that he was looking after someone else’s dog at the property and charging the owner £500 a week.Mrs Gottschalk and her husband, financier Maximilian Gottschalk, eventually sacked him after he refused to drive the banker’s mother-in-law to London Heathrow airport on his day off. “I wasn’t expecting my job to be on the line and to be suddenly homeless and have to leave the property.”To suddenly receive this message, I had no idea what was going on.”Mrs Gottschalk said: “It was very clear your job was at risk. You had abused your situation as house manager. You had used vehicles, you let people onto the property without our knowledge, you made money off us on our property.”In his judgement, Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto said he was satisfied Mrs Gottschalk’s account of the disputes were “more likely” to be the accurate version of events.Referring to the incident with Mrs Gottschalk he said: “Mrs Gottschalk believed the claimant has been curt, rude, had refused to take her mother to the airport, and failed to offer any other assistance to her.”I am satisfied that it was the claimant’s conduct which caused the dismissal, it was a potentially fair reason for dismissal.”However, he added: “I am not satisfied that in this case there was any investigation. What happened was that Mrs Gottschalk had formed the genuine belief that the claimant had refused to take her mother to the airport and she dismissed.”What she did not do was carry out any sort of investigation whatsoever. A reasonable investigation would have involved, at the very least, the claimant being asked why he acted as he did. On Tuesday, in a reserved judgement following the Nov 7 tribunal, Judge Andrew Gumbiti-Zimuto found Mr and Mrs Gottschalk had unfairly dismissed Mr Pyke and the couple will now have to pay him £8,131.The tribunal had heard that Mr Pyke had worked at the house for 13 years. He was a former gardener at the luxury home before being appointed house manager in September 2014 when the couple moved to Hong Kong to live.He claimed he was unfairly dismissed by the family after they placed him under so much stress he was forced to seek professional help before he eventually received a text stating “f–k off and leave my house”.