Mr M Edmunds v AM Fire Systems Ltd — 2021

The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim. It held that the respondent had a conduct reason for dismissal, based principally on the 29 November 2018 incident and Mr Edmunds’s refusal to provide access to the company laptop, and it treated the earlier High Court findings about the laptop and confidential information as binding. It rejected the case that the dismissal was a bogus or pre-orchestrated outcome, found that April-Jane Barnes genuinely believed the misconduct allegations and had reasonable grounds for that belief, and concluded that the investigation and dismissal fell within the band of reasonable responses.

The tribunal also found that, even if the dismissal had been unfair, it would have reduced any basic and compensatory awards by 100% because of Mr Edmunds’s conduct. It said that the conduct on 29 November 2018, the withholding of the password, and the downloading of confidential information would have justified that reduction.

On disability status, the tribunal accepted that Mr Edmunds had a mental impairment, but held that he had not shown that it was long-term by the relevant time. It found no reliable evidence of a pre-6 November 2018 start date, said that the mid-November 2018 diagnosis of a stress-related problem did not show a likely 12-month duration, and held that the letter from Ms Balquis did not establish that the impairment was likely to last for at least 12 months by the dismissal date of 14 May 2019. Because disability was not established, the tribunal said the discrimination claims did not strictly arise, but it went on to address them.

The indirect discrimination claim failed because the application of the grievance and disciplinary procedures was not, in itself, a discriminatory provision, criterion or practice. The reasonable adjustments claim failed because the claimant did not establish a particular disadvantage, the respondent was not shown to know or reasonably be expected to know of any such disadvantage, and the proposed steps of progressing matters faster or adjourning until he was fit to participate were not reasonable in the circumstances. The disability-related harassment claim also failed because the conduct complained of was not related to disability.

The tribunal did not finally determine the holiday pay issue. It rejected a case framed as a refusal to permit leave under regulation 30(1)(a)(i) of the Working Time Regulations 1998, but on reconsidering the list of issues it considered that there was likely accrued holiday pay due on termination under regulation 14 and regulation 30(1)(b). It estimated that around 13 days’ statutory leave may have accrued between 1 January 2019 and 14 May 2019, but said it could not determine the amount on the information available and would reconvene for further submissions.