Case 2401052/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Derren Cartledge v Amazon UK Services Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2401052/2021
- Decision date
- 4 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Derren Cartledge
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was employed as an Associate/Picker and was dismissed for gross misconduct following an incident in the respondent's car park on 22 July 2020. The respondent relied on conduct as the reason for dismissal, alleging that the claimant drove dangerously in a way that put others at serious risk.
The tribunal found that the respondent carried out a reasonable investigation. It relied on un-pixelated CCTV footage, witness statements from people identified as present, and two investigation meetings with the claimant. The tribunal rejected criticisms that the investigation was rushed or materially undermined by inconsistencies in witness evidence.
The tribunal found that the disciplinary decision-maker had reasonable grounds to conclude that the claimant drove dangerously and that the conduct could have resulted in serious injury or fatality. It also found that the respondent followed a fair and reasonable procedure, gave the claimant opportunities to respond, warned him that dismissal was possible, and considered mitigation including length of service and disciplinary record.
The tribunal concluded that dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses. It found that the respondent acted reasonably in treating the claimant's conduct as gross misconduct and in deciding that dismissal was the appropriate sanction. The unfair dismissal claim and the outstanding holiday pay claim were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of gross misconduct and that the respondent acted reasonably in treating that as a sufficient reason to dismiss. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment records that the claim for outstanding holiday pay was dismissed, but the reasons focus on the unfair dismissal claim and do not set out a separate holiday pay analysis. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
11 references- s.94 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- British Home Stores Ltd v Burchell
- Polkey v AE Dayton Services Limited
- range of reasonable responses
- Iceland Frozen Foods Limited v Jones
- Post Office v Foley
- HSBC Bank PLC v Madden
- Graham v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Jobcentre Plus)
- Britobabapulle v Ealing Hospital NHS Trust
- ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures
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.