Case 1302964/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr William Clark v Central Extrusions Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 1302964/2022
- Decision date
- 21 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gilroy KC
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr William Clark
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr William Clark was employed by Central Extrusions Limited from 5 November 2018 and was dismissed summarily on 31 March 2022 for gross misconduct. The dismissal followed a conversation on 11 February 2022 between the claimant, Mr Michael Rollinson and Mr Mark Webb, in which Mr Rollinson's disability was discussed. The dismissal letter referred to the claimant having made a discriminatory remark about Mr Rollinson's disability and also referred to a previous racial complaint, although the tribunal noted confusion about whether the dismissal was said to rest on the February 2022 incident alone or on earlier alleged incidents as well.
The tribunal accepted that the reason for dismissal was conduct and therefore a potentially fair reason under ss.98(1) and (2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, but it was not satisfied that the respondent had a genuine belief in misconduct, reasonable grounds for that belief, or carried out a reasonable investigation. The claimant's case was that he had used a word in a historical and non-offensive context, and the tribunal found the respondent had not tested that account with Mr Rollinson or Mr Webb, or explained how it decided the word had been used offensively. The tribunal also considered the dismissal decision to be outside the range of reasonable responses.
The process was additionally found to be substantially unfair. Mr Thorpe, who made the dismissal decision, did not conduct the disciplinary hearing and his witness statement was only produced after the tribunal queried the respondent's failure to call him. The tribunal found the respondent was confused about whether it relied on the alleged February 2022 incident only, or also on alleged incidents in May and September 2021, and the claimant was not given a fair opportunity to answer any such additional allegations. The tribunal also held that the claimant was denied a proper appeal. The claim for unfair dismissal was therefore upheld, and remedy was left to a further hearing listed for 30 June 2023.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Remedy was not determined in this judgment and was listed for a further hearing on 30 June 2023. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- ss.98(1) and (2) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- genuine belief, reasonable grounds and reasonable investigation
- range of reasonable responses
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.