Case 1803859/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C M Seaman v Alliance Automotive UK LV Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 1803859/2021
- Decision date
- 26 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shulman REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C M Seaman
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr C M Seaman was employed by Alliance Automotive UK LV Limited as a driver from 8 August 2016 until his dismissal on 4 May 2021. The tribunal found that on 21 April 2021 he used the word "nigger" in the workplace, within earshot of Mr Delroy Rudd. Mr Seaman accepted using the word, but maintained that he did not appreciate how offensive it was and that its use was justified in the context of a discussion about an incident involving a black person in America. He also relied on comparisons with the handling of other employees, including Mr Rudd, Mr Wild and Mr Giles.
The tribunal found that the reason for dismissal was conduct. It accepted that the respondent had reasonable grounds to believe Mr Seaman had used wholly unacceptable language, and that a proper investigation had been carried out by Mr Ledgeway, Mr Bailey and then on appeal by Mr Goulbourne. The tribunal rejected the claimant's criticisms of procedure and found that Mr Rudd had not used foul language aimed at the claimant or his wife, but had been trying to make the claimant understand the gravity of his conduct. It also found that the differences relied on in relation to Mr Wild and Mr Giles did not assist the claimant.
Applying sections 98(1), 98(2) and 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the tribunal held that dismissal for gross misconduct was within the range of reasonable responses. The unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed, and the breach of contract claim fell with it under section 86 ERA. The tribunal also ordered that the claimant's £300 deposit be paid to the respondent under rule 39(5), on the basis that the specific allegation or argument had been decided against him for substantially the reasons given in the deposit order.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- s.98(1) ERA 1996
- s.98(2) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- s.86 ERA
- range of reasonable responses
- paragraph 39(5) of the Employment Tribunal Rules
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.