Case 2202317/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Sullivan v Almas Industries UK Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2202317/2020
- Decision date
- 16 December 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge P Klimov
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Sullivan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard remotely by Employment Judge P Klimov sitting alone on 15 and 16 December 2020. The claimant, Mr R Sullivan, appeared in person and the respondent was represented by counsel. The tribunal recorded that the hearing was by CVP because of the Coronavirus pandemic restrictions.
The tribunal found that the principal reason for Mr Sullivan's dismissal was the respondent's decision to cut personnel costs in response to the ensuing Covid-19 pandemic. It found that the reason was not one of those set out in sections 101A(1)(a), 101A(1)(b) or 104(1)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, so he could not be automatically regarded as unfairly dismissed for the purposes of Part IX of the Act.
The tribunal also found that Mr Sullivan had not been continuously employed by the respondent for at least two years ending with the effective date of termination, so he did not have the qualifying service needed to bring an ordinary unfair dismissal claim under section 94 ERA 1996. On that basis, the unfair dismissal claim failed and was dismissed. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the principal reason for dismissal was cost-cutting because of the Covid-19 pandemic, not a reason within sections 101A(1)(a), 101A(1)(b) or 104(1)(b) ERA 1996. It also found the claimant had not been continuously employed for two years ending with the effective date of termination, so he did not have the ordinary unfair dismissal right under section 94 ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.101A(1)(a) ERA 1996
- s.101A(1)(b) ERA 1996
- s.104(1)(b) ERA 1996
- s.94 ERA 1996
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.