Case 2601110/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. J Hamilton v North East Lincolnshire Council — 2022
- Case reference
- 2601110/2022
- Decision date
- 22 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Heap Members
- Venue
- Lincoln
- Panel members
- Mr. J Hill, Mr. A Blomefield
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. J Hamilton
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr J Hamilton worked for North East Lincolnshire Council as a Crematorium Technician from October 2019. The tribunal recorded that the case concerned his dismissal for conduct arising from concerns at the pet crematorium, including allegations about de-ashing the cremator, health and safety checks, paperwork, PPE, instructions, and timesheets. It also noted that a reference in the claim form to "indirect discrimination" was not pursued as a discrimination complaint and that the live issues were unfair dismissal and a complaint under s.92 Employment Rights Act 1996.
On the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal accepted that the respondent had carried out a thorough and fair investigation and had reasonable grounds for its beliefs. It found that ashes and bone fragments had been left in the pet cremator after the claimant’s use, that the claimant had not completed the relevant check and cleaning paperwork, that there was evidence supporting the missing locking screw/cap and the spent factivate drum issues, and that there were further admitted concerns about timekeeping and incorrect overtime claims. Applying the conduct dismissal framework under s.98 ERA 1996 and the Burchell approach, the tribunal held that dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses, including when the matters were viewed cumulatively.
The tribunal also found the dismissal procedure fair. Although the dismissal letter was sent to an old address, the claimant had been told the reasons for dismissal and his appeal rights at the end of the disciplinary hearing, and the tribunal found no breach of the ACAS Code on that basis. On the s.92 ERA 1996 complaint, the tribunal held that the claimant had not requested a written statement of reasons for dismissal and therefore the statutory entitlement was not triggered. Both claims were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed after the tribunal found the respondent had a potentially fair reason of conduct, carried out a thorough investigation, and acted within the band of reasonable responses. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Complaint under s.92 Employment Rights Act 1996 for failure to provide written reasons for dismissal; dismissed because the claimant had not requested a statement and none of the automatic entitlement exceptions applied. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- s.94 ERA 1996
- s.98 ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- British Home Stores v Burchell
- ACAS Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures
- s.92 ERA 1996
- Abernethy v Mott, Hay & Anderson
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.