In Person v Respondent — 2019

The tribunal found that the claimant, a chief engineer at Westwood, had been involved in the decommissioning of production lines 1 and 3 before the site closed, but that Blackrow had a contractual role in the decommissioning, marking, recording and reinstallation work once it came on site in June 2018. It accepted that the respondent's investigation into the later problems at Lakeside was incomplete: Mr Nearn did not give evidence, there was no investigation report explaining what documents had been obtained or considered, and there was insufficient enquiry into Blackrow's obligations or the role of Mr Down and others who had contemporaneous knowledge of the work.

On unfair dismissal, the tribunal held that the respondent dismissed the claimant for conduct, but that the decision was not reached after a reasonable investigation and was based on assumptions by Mr Lilley and Miss Cawsey rather than direct evidence that the claimant or the Westwood engineers were responsible for the defective wiring. It found there was no direct evidence who had carried out the damaging work, rejected the suggestion that the claimant had personally caused or authorised it, and held that the dismissal was not merely procedurally unfair. It also rejected contribution and held that Polkey did not apply.

On the pleaded discrimination claim, the tribunal held that the respondents did not have the relevant knowledge of the claimant's Crohn's-related disability before early January 2019, and that after the disability was raised they made the adjustments the claimant could reasonably expect. The claims under sections 15 and 20 of the Equality Act 2010 were therefore dismissed. The redundancy payment claim was dismissed because the tribunal found the claimant was not dismissed for redundancy, and the holiday pay and unauthorised deductions claims were dismissed because the claimant did not prove unpaid holiday or unauthorised deductions.

For remedy, the tribunal awarded a basic award of £3,150 and a compensatory award of £300 for unfair dismissal, and damages for breach of contract in the sum of £9,509.54 based on 12 weeks' net earnings. It noted that the claimant obtained new work, earning more than with the respondent, about four weeks after dismissal, which it took into account in mitigation. The total monetary award was £12,959.54.