Paul Bayley v Lada Engineering Services Ltd — 2021

Paul Bayley resigned on 31 October 2019 after a period of management change at Lada Engineering Services Ltd. He brought claims of constructive unfair dismissal, including an allegation that the dismissal was automatically unfair because he had raised age discrimination, together with direct age discrimination, age-related harassment, and unpaid commission and expenses. The respondent did not attend the hearing. The tribunal heard the claimant's evidence and the documentary material, and applied the burden of proof principles under the Equality Act 2010.

On the dismissal claims, the tribunal accepted that the appeal against the August 2019 written warning was unfair because Clayton Manley, who gave the warning, also heard the appeal. However, it found that Bayley's resignation was prompted by his disagreement with the direction of the business, workload, delivery and quality problems, and his wish not to see his credibility with clients eroded, rather than by age discrimination or by the handling of the warning, appeal, or grievance. It held that age played no part in the events, that the resignation was not a response to any breach of contract by the respondent, and that the claims for constructive unfair dismissal and automatically unfair dismissal failed.

The tribunal also rejected the age discrimination and harassment claims. It found no link between the complained-of management changes, disciplinary action, IT issues, or workload and Bayley's age, and did not accept the suggestion that the respondent treated him adversely because he was over 60. On the wages claim, it found that Bayley had not proved entitlement to commission or expenses: there was no supporting documentary evidence of the alleged entitlement, and the respondent's accountant had written to say there was no commission due. All claims were dismissed, and no remedy was awarded.