Case 2207605/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. J. Woodcock v Network Rail Infrastructure Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2207605/2022
- Decision date
- 10 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Goodman
- Venue
- London Central
- Panel members
- Ms D. Keyms, Mr I. McLoughlin
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. J. Woodcock
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, a Team Leader at Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd, was suspended in April 2021 and later dismissed in May 2022 following allegations of unwanted conduct and harassment of a female colleague (referred to as MB). He brought claims of unfair dismissal, sex discrimination, disability discrimination (discrimination arising from disability and failure to make reasonable adjustments), wrongful dismissal, and unauthorised deductions from wages (alternatively breach of contract) in relation to being paid only basic rate pay during the lengthy suspension.
The tribunal dismissed all claims. On unfair dismissal, the tribunal accepted conduct as the reason for dismissal within s.98(2)(b) ERA 1996 and found the dismissal fair under s.98(4). The sex discrimination claim failed, with the tribunal also considering time limits. The disability discrimination claims failed; the respondent disputed that the claimant was disabled by depression and anxiety, contending the relevant impairment was addiction to alcohol. The wrongful dismissal claim failed, and the contractual/deductions claim concerning the rate of pay during suspension also failed. A separate breach of contract claim relating to the length of the grievance and disciplinary processes was withdrawn on 27 February 2024.
The hearing was held in person at London Central before Employment Judge Goodman sitting with two lay members over February and March 2024, with deliberations 11-13 March 2024. The tribunal ordered partial anonymisation of the colleague (MB) to balance open justice with her Convention right to privacy, given that aspects of her private life appeared in the bundle but had limited relevance to the claims.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Tribunal found the unfair dismissal claim fails. Dismissal was for conduct (harassment/bullying of a colleague, MB) within s.98(2)(b) ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | Sex discrimination claim fails. Tribunal also considered whether the claims were out of time. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Disability discrimination | Disability discrimination claims (discrimination arising from disability and failure to make reasonable adjustments) fail. Respondent contested whether the claimant was disabled, contending impairment was addiction to alcohol rather than depression/anxiety. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Wrongful dismissal (failing to pay notice) claim fails. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Breach of contract as to wages (paying only basic rate pay during suspension) fails. A related breach of contract claim regarding lengthy processes was withdrawn on 27 February 2024. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Pleaded in the alternative to the breach of contract wages claim regarding suspension pay; fails on the same basis. | Dismissed |
Legal tests applied
5 references- section 98(2)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- s122 ERA
- s123 ERA
- ACAS Code of Practice on Discipline and Grievance
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.