Mr. David Bartell v Rend-Tech North East Limited — 2020

Mr. Bartell worked for Rend-Tech as a renderer. The tribunal found that a meeting took place on 4 September 2019 to discuss retirement, but it did not accept that he had formed a firm intention to retire or that he resigned at that meeting. It found he had been thinking about winding down on a rolling basis, that Rend-Tech knew he was 65, and that the meeting was arranged because the company understood retirement was being discussed.

It rejected Rend-Tech's case that the employment ended by resignation on 4 October 2019. The tribunal accepted Mr. Bartell's evidence that when he queried the 1 October letter by telephone on 4 October, Mr. Fletcher told him he was 'finished', that it was 'all sorted out', and that 2.5 days' holiday would be deducted. It held that those words were unambiguous words of dismissal and that a hypothetical younger renderer would not have been treated in the same way.

On direct age discrimination, the tribunal held that Mr. Bartell was pressured to resign and then dismissed because of his age and Rend-Tech's belief that he was no longer able to do the physically demanding work. Rend-Tech did not prove that the treatment was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. On unfair dismissal, the tribunal found there was no potentially fair reason for dismissal: Mr. Bartell was entitled to challenge the 1 October letter, the respondent's gross misconduct case failed, and no ACAS uplift, contributory fault, or Polkey reduction was made. It awarded a basic award of £5,400, a compensatory award of £2,930.50, and £8,400 for injury to feelings plus £732.32 interest, making a total of £17,462.82.