Case 2600330/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Lees v Trade Timber Supplies (a firm) — 2022
- Case reference
- 2600330/2022
- Decision date
- 8 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Heathcote
- Venue
- Nottingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Lees
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr D Lees brought an unfair dismissal claim arising from events on 20 to 22 October 2021. His ET1 also referred to 'various bullying over the years from bosses', but the tribunal held there was no standalone claim of that kind and no discrimination claim before it, so those matters were considered only as context for the dismissal claim.
The tribunal accepted that the respondent had a genuine belief that the claimant had engaged in misconduct. It found that on 20 October 2021 and again on 22 October 2021 he refused reasonable instructions to add further deliveries to his van even though there was capacity within the respondent's £2,000 load limit, and that his objections were not based on safety concerns. On 22 October 2021 the dispute escalated in the yard, with the tribunal accepting evidence that the claimant swore, became aggressive and abusive towards Mrs Dutton and Ms Kemp, and used highly offensive language.
Although misconduct was a potentially fair reason for dismissal, the tribunal held the dismissal was unfair under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 because the respondent did not follow any further procedure. There was no investigation beyond the immediate incident, no formal disciplinary hearing, and no appeal. The tribunal found that a reasonable employer would have given the claimant an opportunity to respond and advance mitigation before dismissal.
On remedy, the tribunal held that dismissal would probably still have followed a fair process, but not inevitably, so it assessed a 75% Polkey reduction. It also found the claimant's refusal to obey reasonable instructions and his abusive conduct were blameworthy and contributed to his dismissal to the extent of 75% for both basic and compensatory awards. Separately, the tribunal found the respondent had failed to provide written particulars of employment and indicated that four weeks' pay would be an appropriate award, but that amount was not fixed in the liability judgment and was left for a final remedies hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed for misconduct but held the dismissal unfair because the respondent did not carry out further investigation, hold a formal disciplinary hearing, or offer an appeal. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to provide written particulars of employment and said an award of four weeks' pay would be appropriate, but the amount was left to a later remedies hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
11 references- s.98(1) and (2) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- British Home Stores Ltd v Burchell
- Iceland Frozen Foods Ltd v Jones
- Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd
- Hill v Governing Body of Great Tey Primary School
- s.122(2) ERA 1996
- s.123(6) ERA 1996
- Nelson v British Broadcasting Corporation (No. 2)
- s.38 Employment Act 2002
- s.207A(2) TULR(C)A 1992
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.