Case 3304104/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Cocks v The Construction Industry Training Board — 2021
- Case reference
- 3304104/2020
- Decision date
- 9 July 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hanning
- Panel members
- Mr R Eyre, Mr B McSweeney
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Cocks
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr G Cocks brought a complaint under s80H of the Employment Rights Act 1996 against the Construction Industry Training Board. The case was heard remotely by CVP at Watford on 17 June 2021 before Employment Judge Hanning, Mr R Eyre and Mr B McSweeney, with the claimant appearing in person and the respondent represented by counsel.
The written judgment records only the outcome: the claimant's complaint under s80H ERA 1996 was found not well-founded and was dismissed. The note at the end states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested, so the extracted record contains no further findings or remedy detail.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Flexible working | Complaint brought under s80H of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The judgment records that it was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.