Case 1601098/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. J. Lumborg v Airbus Operations Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 1601098/2018
- Decision date
- 14 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T. Vincent Ryan
- Panel members
- Mr. A. Fryer, Ms L.V. Owen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. J. Lumborg
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that Mr J. Lumborg was unfairly dismissed by Airbus Operations Ltd for a reason related to conduct on 23 February 2018. It said it was unable to make a finding of blameworthy conduct at the liability hearing to support a reduction in the claimant's basic or compensatory awards, although it recorded that the claimant was at a substantial risk of being fairly dismissed and that any compensatory award would reflect that risk. Remedy was left to a later hearing.
The tribunal dismissed the disability discrimination claim based on a disciplinary warning issued on 8 February 2017 because it was presented out of time and the tribunal found it would not be just and equitable to extend time. It also dismissed the claim that the dismissal itself was unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability.
The reasonable adjustments claim was dismissed. The tribunal found the respondent did not operate the PCP alleged by the claimant; instead, it operated a provision that mistakes, poor performance or poor workmanship would lead to consideration of disciplinary action. On that basis, it found there was no substantial disadvantage in comparison with persons who are not disabled.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed for a reason related to conduct on 23 February 2018 and held that the dismissal was unfair. Remedy was not determined in this judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The claim that a disciplinary warning on 8 February 2017 amounted to discrimination arising from disability was presented out of time, and the tribunal found it would not be just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal rejected the claim that dismissal was unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The reasonable adjustments claim failed because the tribunal found the respondent did not operate the PCP alleged; it operated a PCP that mistakes, poor performance or poor workmanship would lead to consideration of disciplinary action, and this did not place the claimant at a substantial disadvantage. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- just and equitable to extend time
- substantial disadvantage
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.