Mr A Kurklis v SPS Aerostructures Limited — 2021

Mr A Kurklis, a maintenance engineer employed by Sps Aerostructures Limited from 1 April 2017, was summarily dismissed on 4 March 2020 after injuring his right hand on 14 February 2020 while removing a lodged cutting tool from a CNC milling machine. The tribunal accepted that the respondent relied on conduct as the reason for dismissal and applied section 98(4) ERA 1996, together with the stated case-law tests on investigation and the band of reasonable responses. It accepted that the claimant had not worn cut-resistant gloves and had not properly risk-assessed the task, and it found Mr Bettison to be a credible witness.

On the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal held that dismissal was outside the band of reasonable responses. It accepted that SPS could reasonably conclude the claimant had failed to wear gloves and had not taken account of the known slippery step, but it also noted that there was no SOP at the time, a SOP was introduced shortly afterwards, and the claimant had a clean disciplinary record and had asked for further training. The tribunal rejected the criticism that there should have been an investigation into why the steps were slippery, but it considered that the dismissal still fell outside the band of reasonable responses in all the circumstances.

The tribunal found that the claimant's conduct caused his dismissal and that it was culpable or blameworthy within the contributory fault analysis. It concluded that he was largely to blame and assessed contribution at 75 percent, referring to sections 122(2) and 123(6) ERA 1996 and the authorities cited in the judgment. The tribunal said any basic and compensatory awards would be reduced accordingly, but it did not quantify a remedy because the hearing dealt only with the merits.

The wrongful dismissal claim also succeeded. The tribunal held that although the claimant had been negligent, careless, and foolish, his conduct was not deliberate or wilful and did not amount to gross negligence. On that basis, it did not amount to a repudiatory breach of contract or gross misconduct under the test discussed in Laws v London Chronicle Limited. The judgment noted that the parties could seek a remedy hearing if they could not agree compensation, and it recorded that the claimant had taken about eight weeks to find nearly comparable employment.