Mr J True v James Taylor Construction Ltd — 2023

The tribunal found that Mr True was employed by James Taylor Construction Ltd from 5 October 2015 until his employment ended on 15 November 2019, and that his dismissal letter dated 18 October 2019 stated redundancy as the reason. The age discrimination allegations concerned comments said to have been made by Martin Shotton before he left the respondent on 31 May 2019, but the claim was presented on 11 March 2020, so the tribunal treated the complaints as out of time unless time was extended.

On the age discrimination issue, the tribunal held that there was no continuing act after 31 May 2019 and that it was not just and equitable to extend time. It noted that the claimant had not brought the matter in grievance form during employment, did not identify the specific remarks until 13 April 2022, and that the respondent would be significantly prejudiced by the delay because any relevant evidence from Mr Shotton would be much less reliable after so many years. The age discrimination complaints were therefore dismissed.

On the protected disclosure complaint, the tribunal accepted that fire safety and building regulation compliance would be matters capable of amounting to a disclosure in the public interest, but it did not accept that the claimant himself made such a disclosure to the contract manager at Kilburn. The tribunal found that he was present when the cladding contractor raised the issue, but that the claimant was merely present and did not himself make the disclosure he later alleged. Even if he had, the tribunal found the move to Kingston was for business reasons: the respondent no longer required a full-time after-care manager and wanted his skills on the Kingston project. The whistleblowing complaint was dismissed.

On unfair dismissal, the tribunal accepted the respondent's evidence that the requirement for a full-time after-care manager had ceased, that the claimant was the only person in that role, and that the respondent genuinely sought to retain him by offering alternative work as Finishing Foreman / Site Manager at Kingston, together with a temporary variation of hours. It found that the respondent consulted with him in September and October 2019, answered his questions in writing, and was not acting on a sham redundancy basis. The tribunal held that the dismissal was by reason of redundancy and was fair, so the unfair dismissal complaint was dismissed.