Case 2300351/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Calvert v John Steward Transport Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2300351/2023
- Decision date
- 26 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Varnam Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Calvert
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr A Calvert, worked for John Steward Transport Limited as an HGV driver from 1 March 2017 until 11 October 2022. The tribunal found that on 11 October 2022 he was told, through Mr Wilkins, that he had to take a different lorry or "pack your stuff and go". Applying an objective test to the words used, the tribunal held that this was a dismissal and that the respondent, not the claimant, ended the employment relationship.
The tribunal rejected the argument that the dismissal was automatically unfair under section 100(1)(d) ERA 1996. It found that the claimant did not believe there were circumstances of serious and imminent danger at the workplace, and that any such belief would in any event have been unreasonable. The claimant's concern was about using a remote-controlled crane on Lewis's lorry, not about imminent danger in the workshop.
On ordinary unfair dismissal, the tribunal accepted that the reason for dismissal was the claimant's refusal to use Lewis's lorry, which it treated as conduct. However, it found that the respondent carried out no real investigation or disciplinary procedure and did not engage with the claimant's reasons for refusing the vehicle. That wholesale procedural failure meant the dismissal fell outside the range of reasonable responses and was unfair. The tribunal also found no Polkey reduction was appropriate, because Mr Steward's evidence was that he did not intend the claimant to be dismissed and, at most, would have issued a final warning.
The tribunal reduced both the basic and compensatory awards by 25% for contributory fault. It found the claimant was blameworthy in the confrontational exchange with Mr Cole on 11 October 2022, including threatening to knock Mr Cole out, but not in maintaining his refusal to drive Lewis's lorry for the short period before dismissal. The final awards were a basic award of £3,211.88 and a compensatory award of £6,878.27, making a total award of £10,090.15. The compensatory award included £6,799.11 for earnings and pension loss, £500 for loss of statutory rights, a 10% ACAS uplift of £729.91, and a £1,142 section 38 award for failure to provide a written statement of terms and conditions.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal upheld the unfair dismissal claim. The award comprised a basic award of £3,211.88 and a compensatory award of £6,878.27 after a 25% reduction for contributory fault. The compensatory award included loss of earnings, pension loss, loss of statutory rights, a 10% ACAS uplift, and a section 38 award for failure to provide written terms and conditions. | Upheld | — | £10,090 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £10,090
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £3,212
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £6,878
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
13 references- Martin v MBS Fastenings
- Harvey on Industrial Relations and Employment Law
- s.100(1)(d) ERA 1996
- Rodgers v Leeds Laser Cutting Ltd
- Burchell test
- range of reasonable responses
- Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd v Hitt
- subsection 123(6) ERA 1996
- Polkey v A. E. Dayton Services Ltd
- Lenlyn UK Ltd v Kular
- Norton Tool Company Ltd v Tewson
- s.207A TULRCA 1992
- s.38 Employment Act 2002
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.