Case 2502584/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R McLean v The Banks Group Limited Heard: Remotely (by video link) — 2021
- Case reference
- 2502584/2019
- Decision date
- 3 June 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Shore NLM
- Panel members
- Ms S Don NLM, Ms J Johnson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R McLean
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal unanimously dismissed the claimant's direct age discrimination claim under section 13 Equality Act 2010. It found that, although the relationship between the claimant and three named colleagues was not always good, none of the colleagues' acts amounted to direct discrimination because of age.
The tribunal also dismissed the claimant's automatic unfair dismissal claims under sections 57A and 99, 100(1)(c), and 100(1)(e) Employment Rights Act 1996. It found that the principal reason for dismissal was the claimant's absence record for personal illness, particularly his absence on 12 July 2019, together with his perceived attitude in the disciplinary hearing on 15 July 2019.
No remedy was awarded because all claims failed on liability.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | The tribunal rejected the direct age discrimination claim under section 13 Equality Act 2010 and found that, although the relationship between the claimant and three named colleagues was not always good, none of their acts were acts of direct discrimination because of age. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal claim under sections 57A and 99 Employment Rights Act 1996 (taking time off for dependants); the tribunal found the claim was not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal claim under section 100(1)(c) Employment Rights Act 1996 (bringing circumstances connected with work that the claimant reasonably believed were harmful to health or safety); the tribunal found the claim was not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal claim under section 100(1)(e) Employment Rights Act 1996 (taking or proposing to take appropriate steps to protect himself or others from danger); the tribunal found the claim was not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- section 13 Equality Act 2010
- section 57A Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 99 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 100(1)(c) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 100(1)(e) Employment Rights Act 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.