Case 3307332/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Coyte v And Siemens Financial Services UK Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 3307332/2018
- Decision date
- 9 June 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Members
- Venue
- Reading
- Panel members
- Ms B Osborne, Mr J Cameron
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Coyte
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Coyte started with Siemens Financial Services UK Limited in 2011 and, after an internal restructure, was given the role of Head of International Vendor Accounts in September 2017. The tribunal found that when he met Mr Swadlo on 8 November 2017 the title was removed because he was the only person in the team, but his role, pay and terms did not change. It also found that the absence of a September/October 2017 PMP had reasonable and proper cause in the restructuring and did not amount to a breach of trust and confidence.
On the constructive dismissal complaint, the tribunal accepted that Mr Coyte raised concerns with Mr A on 17 January 2018 and with Mr Swadlo on 29 January 2018, but found he had decided to resign no later than 22 January 2018 and communicated that decision in the 23 January 2018 emails. It held that there was no fundamental breach, no final straw and no unreasonable failure to act, because the claimant gave no reasonable opportunity between 29 and 31 January 2018 for the respondent to deal with the grievances. The respondent then treated the resignation letter as a grievance, investigated it and pursued the appeal process, but the grievance and appeal were not upheld.
On age discrimination, the tribunal applied section 13 Equality Act 2010 and the burden of proof authorities of Madarassy, Igen and Ayodele. It found nothing in Mr Swadlo's 2017 conference presentations that referred to age or could reasonably be understood as age-based, and it rejected the allegations about Melanie Kratz and the later Proximity Department appointment because there was no evidence of less favourable treatment. The tribunal also held that the 2015 allegations were out of time under section 123 Equality Act 2010 and that the alleged comment that Mr Coyte was the oldest in the company, said to have been relayed to him when he was not present, was not discriminatory. Both complaints were dismissed and no remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | Claim was presented as unfair constructive dismissal under sections 95(1)(c) and 98 ERA 1996. The tribunal found the removal of the title, the lack of a PMP and the handling of the claimant's concerns had reasonable and proper cause during the restructuring, and that there was no fundamental breach or final straw. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Age discrimination | Direct age discrimination complaint based on 2017 conference presentations, promotion decisions and an alleged comment that the claimant was the oldest in the company. The tribunal found no age-based less favourable treatment; some 2015 allegations were out of time under section 123 Equality Act 2010 and no extension was justified. | Dismissed | Age | — |
Legal tests applied
13 references- sections 95(1)(c) and 98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp
- Hilton v Shiner Limited
- London Borough of Waltham Forest v Omilaju
- Kaur v Leeds Teaching Hospital NHS Trust
- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.136 Equality Act 2010
- Madarassy v Nomura International plc
- Igen v Wong
- Ayodele v Citylink Ltd
- s.123 Equality Act 2010 time limit
- s.23 Equality Act 2010
- s.24 Equality Act 2010
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.