Case 2501780/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Liam Tinkler v Electronic Security Solutions Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2501780/2020
- Decision date
- 24 August 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Speker OBE
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Liam Tinkler
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Liam Tinkler brought a claim of unfair dismissal against Electronic Security Solutions Limited after he was summarily dismissed on 8 July 2020. The tribunal found that the dismissal arose from a June 2020 incident in which a bottle of hydraulic fluid fell from his vehicle, that he checked the ground but did not report a possible spill or use the spill procedures, and that later evidence from colleagues and CCTV-supported accounts led the respondent to conclude that oil had been left on the yard. At the disciplinary hearing, the allegation of dishonesty was not upheld, but the charges relating to serious breaches of health and safety policy and failure to carry out a reasonable authorised instruction were upheld and treated as gross misconduct. The appeal was heard by the managing director and the dismissal was upheld.
Applying section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the tribunal held that the reason for dismissal was conduct, which is a potentially fair reason. It applied the Burchell test and found that the respondent genuinely believed the claimant was guilty of misconduct, had reasonable grounds for that belief, and carried out as much investigation as was reasonable in the circumstances. The tribunal also applied Iceland Frozen Foods and section 98(4) ERA 1996, and concluded that dismissal fell within the band of reasonable responses open to a reasonable employer given the importance of health and safety procedures in the respondent’s business and the claimant’s failure to report the potential spill.
The tribunal accepted that there were shortcomings in the respondent’s handling of the matter, including its failure to preserve the CCTV footage and its limited consideration of alternatives to dismissal such as a final written warning or refresher training. It also noted the claimant’s point that he had been allowed to continue working for about a week after the incident, but held that this did not make the dismissal unfair. The claim was therefore dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was fairly dismissed for conduct and his unfair dismissal claim failed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.98(1) ERA 1996
- Burchell test
- Iceland Frozen Foods Ltd v Jones
- s.98(4) 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.