Michael Bysouth v Bourne Group Limited — 2020

This was an application for interim relief under ss.128-129 ERA 1996 brought by Michael Bysouth after his dismissal by Bourne Group Limited. The tribunal recorded that Bysouth said he was dismissed because he engaged in health and safety activities on 6 April 2020, while the respondent said the dismissal was for gross misconduct. The respondent accepted that the application was presented within the 7-day time limit.

The tribunal explained that the question was whether it appeared "likely" that, at the final hearing, the claimant would succeed in showing that the reason or principal reason for dismissal fell within s.100 ERA 1996. It referred to Parkins v Sodexho Ltd, Taplin v C Shippam Ltd and Ministry of Justice v Sarfraz when describing the interim relief threshold, and emphasised that it was not deciding the final unfair dismissal issue.

On the papers, the tribunal identified fundamental disputes of fact about why the claimant was dismissed and whether he was acting within s.100(1)(a) or (b). It noted evidence said to contradict the pleaded case, including the claimant's own accounts in meetings with the respondent in which he accepted organising the meeting, together with staff accounts identifying him as the organiser. It also accepted that the respondent's case about a factory shutdown was material to the threshold question.

The tribunal concluded that it could not say it was likely that Bysouth would establish that the principal reason for dismissal was one prohibited by s.100(1)(a) or (b). The application for interim relief was therefore dismissed. No monetary award was made.