Case 3305872/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs N Thurlow v Norbar Torque Tools Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 3305872/2021
- Decision date
- 13 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto Appearances
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs N Thurlow
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs Thurlow, employed by Norbar Torque Tools Limited since 2008, was dismissed on 28 January 2021 after a series of performance concerns following her return from sickness absence. The tribunal found that the respondent had given her training, that she had received a final written warning in September 2020 after errors in the small torque wrench section, and that further mistakes were then identified after she moved to the medium torque wrench section.
The claimant argued that she was dismissed because she had raised Covid-19 health and safety concerns and taken steps to protect herself and her family from the risk of infection. The tribunal did not accept that account. It found that the evidence did not support a conclusion that the claimant had been targeted for raising safety issues, that it had not been proved that Mr Bell shouted or swore at her, and that the matters relied on by the claimant did not show hostility to Covid-related concerns.
Applying the statutory framework under ERA 1996, including the capability provisions in s.98 and the automatically unfair dismissal provision in s.100(1)(e), the tribunal held that the real reason for dismissal was the claimant's poor performance. It accepted Mr Goncharov's evidence that the claimant had made four errors in a short period, had not taken ownership of the mistakes, and had not provided a new explanation or mitigation. The tribunal also held that the process was reasonable, in accordance with the respondent's procedure and compliant with the ACAS Code of Practice.
The unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed. No separate monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal rejected the claimant's argument that the dismissal was for automatically unfair reasons under s.100(1)(e) ERA 1996 and found the principal reason was poor performance/capability. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- s.94 ERA 1996
- s.98(1) ERA 1996
- s.98(3) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- Alidair Ltd v Taylor
- s.100(1)(e) ERA 1996
- s.100(2) ERA 1996
- s.100(3) 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.
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.