Case 1802290/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Tracy Ann Elder as administrator on behalf of the estate of Matthew Elder v B&Q Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 1802290/2022
- Decision date
- 9 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cox Members
- Venue
- Leeds
- Panel members
- Mr G Harker, Mr M Taj
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Tracy Ann Elder as administrator on behalf of the estate of Matthew Elder
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant was dismissed without notice after concerns about his conduct towards two colleagues, D and E. The Respondent accepted that he was disabled by depression and anxiety and knew of that disability. Allegations of failure to make reasonable adjustments and for other payments were withdrawn and dismissed at the Hearing.
On unfair dismissal, the Tribunal found that the dismissing manager genuinely believed the Claimant had continued to contact D and E despite repeated instructions not to do so, had made comments to E that could reasonably be interpreted as threatening, and had used derogatory language about E. The Tribunal found there were reasonable grounds for that belief and that the investigation was not made unreasonable by the matters criticised by the Claimant's representative.
The Tribunal found dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses. It noted the support and warnings given to the Claimant, the effect of the conduct on workplace relationships and staff wellbeing, and the dismissing manager's conclusion that trust had been lost. It found other alleged flaws, including the wording of the disciplinary invitation letter, did not make the dismissal unreasonable.
On disability discrimination, the Tribunal found the suspension and dismissal were because of concerns about the Claimant's conduct. It held that the Claimant had not established that the conduct arose in consequence of his anxiety and depression. The discrimination arising from disability claims therefore failed and were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Allegation of failure to make reasonable adjustments was withdrawn and dismissed at the Hearing. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
| Other | Allegation for "other payments" was withdrawn and dismissed at the Hearing; the judgment does not identify the payment claim further. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The Tribunal found conduct was a potentially fair reason and dismissal was within the range of possible reasonable responses. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Claim concerned discrimination arising from disability under section 15 Equality Act 2010 in relation to suspension and dismissal. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- Section 98(2)(b) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Section 98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- ACAS Code on disciplinary procedures paragraph 9
- Section 39(2) Equality Act 2010
- Section 15 Equality Act 2010
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.