Case 2600119/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Robert James Auton v Benlowe Group Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2600119/2021
- Decision date
- 8 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ahmed Members
- Venue
- Leicester
- Panel members
- Mr K Rose, Mr M Alibhai
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Robert James Auton
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Mr Robert James Auton was disabled by reason of arthritis in both hands, but not by reason of a back condition or prolapsed disc. It accepted that Benlowe Group Limited knew of the hand disability for the section 15 Equality Act 2010 complaint, but not of any substantial disadvantage for the reasonable adjustments complaint. The section 15 claim failed because the tribunal found no evidence that the attendance-related scoring was linked to disability-related absence. The section 20/21 claim also failed because the redundancy selection criteria did not place disabled employees at a substantial disadvantage compared with non-disabled employees.
On unfair dismissal, the tribunal accepted that the dismissal was for redundancy within section 139(1)(b) ERA 1996 in the context of a Covid-19-related reduction in work, and it accepted that there was a genuine need to reduce glazier numbers. It held, however, that the dismissal was procedurally unfair under section 98(4) ERA 1996 because the subjective elements of the selection process, particularly criteria 6 and 7, were affected by management views about the claimant that should not have been relied on without further investigation. The tribunal applied the Polkey approach and found that, even excluding the offending subjective criteria, the claimant would still have been selected for redundancy, so there was no compensatory award. The claimant had already received a redundancy payment of £2,040.48, which extinguished the basic award.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had not given the claimant a compliant written statement of particulars of employment under section 1 ERA 1996. It considered that the letter given on or shortly after commencement did not fully comply, and that the company handbook had not been shown to have been provided. Under section 38 Employment Act 2002 it awarded four weeks' pay, calculated from a gross weekly pay of £321.19, producing £1,280.76 net. The Recoupment Regulations did not apply.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found there was a genuine redundancy situation under section 139(1)(b) ERA 1996, but the dismissal was procedurally unfair because the subjective elements of the redundancy scoring were affected by management views that should not have been relied on without investigation. The tribunal then applied Polkey and found no compensatory loss because the claimant would have been selected in any event; the redundancy payment extinguished the basic award. | Upheld | — | £0 |
| Disability discrimination | This was the section 15 EA 2010 complaint of discrimination arising from disability. The tribunal accepted that the respondent knew the claimant was disabled by reason of arthritis in both hands, but found no causative link between that disability and the attendance scoring or dismissal. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | This was the section 20/21 EA 2010 reasonable adjustments complaint. The tribunal held that no relevant substantial disadvantage had been identified and, in any event, the redundancy selection criteria did not place disabled employees at a disadvantage in comparison with non-disabled employees. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Other | The tribunal found a failure to provide a compliant written statement of particulars under section 1 ERA 1996 and made an award under section 38 Employment Act 2002. It awarded four weeks' pay, calculated from a gross weekly pay of £321.19, producing £1,280.76 net. | Upheld | — | £1,281 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,281
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £0
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £0
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
19 references- s.6 Equality Act 2010
- s.15 Equality Act 2010
- s.20 Equality Act 2010
- Pnaiser v NHS England
- Sheikholeslami v University of Edinburgh
- Environment Agency v Rowan
- Smith v Churchills Stairlifts Plc
- s.139(1)(b) ERA 1996
- Murray v Foyle Meats
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- HSBC Bank plc v Madden
- Iceland Frozen Foods Ltd v Jones
- London Ambulance Service NHS Trust v Small
- Williams v Compair Maxam Ltd
- British Aerospace plc v Green
- Eaton Ltd v King
- Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd
- s.1 ERA 1996
- s.38 Employment Act 2002
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.