Mr A Courtney v AGTC Ltd — 2023

The tribunal found that the claimant was employed as Operations Manager from January 2018 and was dismissed on 20 April 2021 after a process presented as redundancy. It accepted that the respondent had decided for organisational reasons to base the Operations Department near the Sheffield warehouse, but held that this was the opportunity for dismissal rather than the reason for it. The tribunal found that, between August and November 2020, the respondent decided it did not want the claimant to remain in its employment because it believed he was affecting workplace relationships and underperforming.

On unfair dismissal, the tribunal held that the respondent had not shown a potentially fair reason for dismissal on the facts as found. Even if redundancy was the reason, the dismissal was outside the range of reasonable responses because the claimant was not properly consulted, the business case and proposed structure were not properly explained, no adequate pooling exercise was undertaken, and he was not given a realistic opportunity to apply for the Operations Manager role. The tribunal also found the respondent had not adequately investigated the alleged performance or workplace-relationship issues before deciding to dismiss, and that the appeal did not cure those defects.

The tribunal found that the claimant had not proved he was disabled by reason of depression at the relevant times. It held that the evidence of substantial adverse effect was insufficient and that the long-term condition was not established. As a result, it made no further findings on the disability-based discrimination complaints relating to depression. As to the back condition, the tribunal did not determine whether it amounted to a disability because the only complaint connected to it was time-barred.

The tribunal dismissed the harassment and victimisation claims. It held that the 12 June 2020 WhatsApp complaint relating to the back condition was out of time and that no just and equitable extension should be granted. It further held that the written grievance of 26 January 2021 was not itself a protected act because it did not allege a breach of the Equality Act, although some later grievance representations did amount to protected acts. Even so, the tribunal found the respondent had already decided to dismiss the claimant before the grievance was lodged, and that the redundancy process and dismissal were not because of the grievance. The judgment records that a separate remedy hearing would determine compensation for unfair dismissal, including whether dismissal would have occurred fairly in any event, so no monetary award was made in this decision.