Case 3303594/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B Krol v The Haulage (Holdings) Organisation Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 3303594/2020
- Decision date
- 16 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge K Welch
- Venue
- Bury St Edmunds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr B Krol
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Krol was employed as an HGV driver from 30 September 2019 until his dismissal on 17 March 2020. He claimed automatic unfair dismissal on health and safety grounds under s.100(1)(c) and s.100(1)(d) Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal recorded that his earlier race discrimination claims had been withdrawn and were not before it in this judgment.
The tribunal found that Mr Krol had not proved that he raised health and safety concerns orally before dismissal, either with colleagues or with Mr Dutton. It accepted that the written grievance dated 17 March 2020 expressed concerns about the safety of the chicken slurry trailer contents and trailer exchanges in a layby, but found that the grievance email was sent after he had already been dismissed and therefore could not have been the reason for the dismissal.
The tribunal found that the reason, or principal reason, for dismissal was Mr Krol's conduct connected with spillages: two earlier spillages had not been reported in line with policy, and the respondent also relied on issues concerning the damaged tachograph and deleted dashcam files in relation to the 11 March 2020 incident. It accepted that the respondent did not follow a fair procedure, its own disciplinary process, or the ACAS Code, but held that this did not matter because the statutory health and safety dismissal test was not met.
The claim for automatic unfair dismissal was therefore dismissed and no remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal alleged under s.100(1)(c) and alternatively s.100(1)(d) ERA 1996. The tribunal found the dismissal was not for health and safety disclosures or refusal to work, but for conduct related to spillages, non-reporting of earlier spillages, and damaged/deleted vehicle records. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- s.100(1)(c) ERA 1996
- s.100(1)(d) ERA 1996
- s.94 ERA 1996
- s.108 ERA 1996
- ACAS Code of Practice
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.