Case 2302465/2018 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Mrs. A. Beattie, Litigation Manager (Croners) — 2020
- Case reference
- 2302465/2018
- Decision date
- 6 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mason Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that on 13 April 2018 there was a heated exchange about unlabeled boilers, during which the claimant swore out of frustration. It accepted that there had been no significant conduct or performance issues before then, but found that the claimant was nevertheless culpable to some extent in how he responded. On 16 April 2018, TW told him that his conduct was “totally unforgivable” and to “clear your desk”. The tribunal held that, taken in context, those words would be understood by a reasonable employee as a dismissal. It also found that the later emails, meetings and continued payment did not amount to a withdrawal of that dismissal by agreement.
The tribunal held that the respondent had shown a potentially fair reason for dismissal, namely conduct, but the dismissal was unfair under s.98(4) ERA 1996. It accepted that TW had a genuine belief in misconduct based on what he had seen, but found that there had been no investigation before the dismissal decision. The claimant was not told that the meeting was disciplinary or that he had a right to be accompanied, and the tribunal concluded that both the procedure and the decision to dismiss fell outside the range of reasonable responses. It rejected the respondent’s case that the claimant had resigned and did not accept the suggestion that the dismissal had been engineered to avoid redundancy.
On remedy, the tribunal calculated a basic award of £1,210.83 before a 25% reduction for contributory conduct, producing £908.13. For the compensatory award, it allowed 58 weeks of net loss at £334.57 per week, added £350 for loss of statutory rights, and deducted £1,806.57 already paid by the respondent. It made no future loss award, found the claimant had reasonably mitigated his loss, made no Polkey reduction, and applied a 25% ACAS uplift for failure to follow the code. It then reduced the result by 25% for contributory conduct, arriving at a compensatory award of £16,826.71 and a total award of £17,734.84 subject to recoupment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the effective dismissal occurred on 16 April 2018. The award comprised a basic award of £908.13 and a compensatory award of £16,826.71, with recoupment applying. | Upheld | — | £17,735 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £17,735
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £908
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £16,827
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
15 references- s.95 ERA 1996
- Harris and Russell Ltd v Slingsby [1973] ICR 454
- Martin v Yeoman Aggregates Ltd [1983]
- British Home Stores v Burchell [1980] ICR 303
- s.98(1) ERA 1996
- s.98(2)(b) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- s.119 ERA 1996
- s.122(2) ERA 1996
- s.123(1) ERA 1996
- s.123(4) ERA 1996
- s.123(6) ERA 1996
- Polkey
- s.207A TULR(C)A 1992
- ACAS Code of Practice 1 on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures 2009
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.