Case 1303994/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Duckworth v Hampshire Demolition and Recycling Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 1303994/2018
- Decision date
- 29 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gilroy QC
- Venue
- Birmingham
- Panel members
- Mrs G Sheldon, Ms J Keene
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Duckworth
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr J Duckworth worked for Hampshire Demolition and Recycling Limited from 4 January 2017 as Asbestos Manager, on a salary of about £60,000 a year paid monthly at £5,000. Although his pay was processed through the Construction Industry Scheme and he had a UTR, the tribunal found that he was an employee on the substance of the arrangements, not their form. The tribunal relied on features such as the fixed salary, holiday pay, provision of a car, telephone and laptop, and the absence of any right to provide a substitute.
The dismissal issue arose from events on 20 April 2018 concerning a method statement for asbestos remediation works at a Southampton site. The tribunal accepted that Mr Duckworth believed he was being asked to send back an approved document in a way that could allow work to proceed before the proper safety process had been completed, and it held that that belief was reasonable. In the course of the dispute Mr Mark Bailey said, "If you aren't going to do it, you might as well fuck off". The tribunal did not need to decide whether Mr Bailey later used the word "sacked"; it found that the words and conduct, including the request for the return of the laptop and phone, amounted to a dismissal.
The tribunal rejected the claim under s.100(1)(e) ERA 1996 because it was not satisfied that Mr Duckworth had shown circumstances of danger which he reasonably believed to be serious and imminent. It upheld the claim under s.100(1)(c) ERA 1996 because he had brought to his employer's attention, by reasonable means, circumstances connected with his work which he reasonably believed were harmful or potentially harmful to health or safety, and it was not reasonably practicable in the circumstances for him to raise the matter by going to a health and safety representative or safety committee. The breach of contract claim and the s.44 health and safety detriment claims were withdrawn. Remedy was listed for a fresh hearing on 29 November 2019, so this judgment made no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Withdrawn at the start of the hearing because the claimant had already received monies in lieu of notice in excess of what he might have recovered. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Other | Health and Safety detriment claim under s.44 ERA 1996; withdrawn on the first day of the hearing. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal was upheld under s.100(1)(c) ERA 1996. The tribunal rejected the alternative case under s.100(1)(e) ERA 1996. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- substance over form
- s.100(1)(c) ERA 1996
- s.100(1)(e) ERA 1996
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.