Case 2500817/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Brown v TT Construction Northern Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2500817/2021
- Decision date
- 13 June 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Loy Representation
- Venue
- Newcastle upon Tyne Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Brown
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Mr Brown was dismissed on 20 April 2021 and that the reason for dismissal was his conduct on 19 and 20 April 2021. It accepted Mr Taylor's evidence that Mr Brown called him a "lying little cunt", threatened to "knock your fucking head off", advanced towards him in an aggressive manner, and remained aggressive the following day. The tribunal rejected the claimant's case that dismissal was driven by an ulterior reason connected with the cannabis farm or by resentment about his reduced availability, and held that the reason for dismissal fell within s.98(2)(b) ERA 1996.
Although the tribunal accepted that Mr Taylor genuinely believed the misconduct had occurred and had reasonable grounds for that belief, it held that the dismissal was unfair because the respondent carried out no investigation and no disciplinary hearing, and gave Mr Brown no opportunity to respond before dismissal. The tribunal also found that the later appeal process was not meaningful because Mr Taylor said he would not have reinstated the claimant in any event. Taking account of the small size of the business and Mr Taylor's direct knowledge of the events, the tribunal nevertheless concluded that a reasonable employer would have investigated, considered suspension, heard mitigation, and then decided on sanction.
On the Polkey analysis, the tribunal held that even if a fair process had been followed, Mr Brown would probably still have been fairly dismissed within about two weeks because Mr Taylor had personally witnessed the incidents and the claimant's case was a denial rather than mitigation. It also found that the claimant's conduct justified reducing any basic and compensatory award by 100%. Separately, the respondent did not contest that no written statement of particulars had been provided, and the tribunal noted that Mr Brown may be entitled to an award under s.38 Employment Act 2002, but remedy was reserved. The holiday pay complaint was dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the dismissal was for conduct and therefore potentially fair under s.98(2)(b) ERA 1996, but held the dismissal was unfair overall because there was no investigation, no disciplinary hearing, and no meaningful appeal. Remedy was reserved; the judgment also recorded a 100% reduction finding for any basic and compensatory award because of the claimant's conduct. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Claim for unpaid accrued holiday pay was dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- Burchell test
- J Sainsbury plc v Hitt
- range of reasonable responses
- Polkey v AE Dayton Services
- s.122(2) ERA 1996
- s.123(6) ERA 1996
- 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.