Case 1304272/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Anthony Myles v Enterprise Rent A Car UK Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 1304272/2021
- Decision date
- 28 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Routley Representation
- Venue
- West Midlands
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Anthony Myles
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Myles had worked for the respondent or its predecessor since 7 January 2008 and transferred on 1 January 2020 as a Mobile Heavy Goods Vehicle Technician. In January 2021 he received a positive appraisal. On 1 April 2021, while attending a National Trust property to service a leased minibus, he told the customer that the appointment confusion was not surprising because there was "a female Eastern European woman in the office and she's always making mistakes." The customer complained, and at the investigation meeting on 19 April 2021 Mr Myles apologised for offending the customer and offered to apologise in person.
The tribunal rejected the respondent's argument that only substantive unfair dismissal had been pleaded and held that it could consider procedural fairness under s.98(4) ERA 1996. It accepted that the respondent honestly believed misconduct had occurred, but found that there were not reasonable grounds for believing that Mr Myles was hostile or discriminatory towards Eastern European women or colleagues. The disciplinary invite referred to derogatory and discriminatory language, but did not put a charge of hostility or discrimination to him, and he was not asked whether he held discriminatory views. The tribunal also noted the lack of supporting evidence, the absence of prior complaints, and the positive appraisal shortly before the incident.
The tribunal held that the dismissal was unfair. It relied on the Burchell guidance in finding that the respondent had not carried out a reasonable investigation and had not dealt fairly with the real allegation it relied on. On remedy, the tribunal said it would not apply a Polkey deduction because the available evidence did not suggest that a fuller investigation would have uncovered evidence justifying a fair dismissal. It did, however, find that Mr Myles' conduct was inappropriate and amounted to minor misconduct, so a 15% deduction for contributory conduct was appropriate. The appeal against dismissal was not upheld.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the dismissal unfair because the respondent treated the claimant as hostile and discriminatory towards Eastern European women/colleagues without putting that allegation to him or carrying out a reasonable investigation. The extracted judgment does not state a monetary award; the remedy section records no Polkey deduction and a 15% deduction for contributory conduct. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
10 references- s.94 ERA 1996
- s.98(2)(b) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- BHS v Burchell
- Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians v Brain
- Adama v Partnerships in Care Ltd
- Chandok v Tirkey
- Aynge v Trickett
- Polkey deduction
- 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.