Case 2414215/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Wilhelm v Stoodley Vehicle Auction Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2414215/2019
- Decision date
- 18 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dunlop
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Wilhelm
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Wilhelm had worked for the respondent since 2010 and later became foreman with access to a company van. Relations deteriorated in late 2018 and 2019 over pay and the van, and the immediate incident before dismissal was his refusal to make a bank run on 13 July 2019, which he instead delegated to other employees. He also covertly recorded the short suspension meeting with Mr Stoodley, after which he was suspended and then dismissed by Mr McGowan and Mr Stoodley for gross misconduct.
The tribunal found that the reason for dismissal was conduct, not redundancy. It rejected the redundancy argument because the respondent's need for the foreman work had not ceased or diminished, and the work continued to be covered after dismissal, including by a later internal appointment. Applying s.98(4) ERA 1996 and the Burchell line of authority, the tribunal held that the respondent did not have a genuine and reasonable belief in misconduct, did not carry out a reasonable investigation, and did not give Mr Wilhelm a proper opportunity to answer the allegations or appeal.
The tribunal also found that dismissal was outside the band of reasonable responses. It noted that the respondent's own handbook and the ACAS Code were not followed, that the claimant had a long service history and a clean disciplinary record in practical terms, and that the incident on 13 July 2019 was at most a matter that might have justified a warning. No Polkey reduction or contributory fault deduction was made, because the tribunal was not satisfied that a fair dismissal would have occurred in any event and was not prepared to find that the refusal to do the bank run was culpable on the evidence before it.
The claim for breach of contract in relation to notice pay succeeded, and the tribunal also stated that the wrongful dismissal claim succeeded. The amount of compensation for the unfair dismissal claim and the amount of notice pay were left to a remedy hearing listed for 30 April 2020. The redundancy payment claim failed.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Liability succeeded; compensation was to be determined at a remedy hearing on 30 April 2020. The tribunal made no reduction for Polkey or contributory fault. | Upheld | — | — |
| Redundancy | The tribunal rejected the redundancy case because the need for foreman work had not ceased or diminished and the role was later filled internally. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Notice pay / wrongful dismissal succeeded, but the amount was left to the remedy hearing on 30 April 2020. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
10 references- s.98(2) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- s.139 ERA 1996
- British Home Stores v Burchell
- Iceland Frozen Foods Ltd v Jones
- Foley v Post Office and Midland Bank plc v Madden
- Sainsbury's Supermarket v Hitt
- Polkey v A E Dayton Services Ltd
- s.122(2) ERA 1996
- s.123(6) ERA 1996
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.