Case 4102199/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Tribunal Members Mr I Ashraf Mr R Taggart A v Rolls-Royce plc — 2020
- Case reference
- 4102199/2020
- Decision date
- 1 May 2020
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Frances Eccles
- Panel members
- Mr I Ashraf, Mr R Taggart
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Tribunal Members Mr I Ashraf Mr R Taggart A
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was summarily dismissed after a workplace altercation with Gary Stewart on 18 December 2019. The Tribunal found that there had been raised voices, inappropriate language, and physical contact, and that the respondent's disciplinary manager was entitled to reject the claimant's account that his conduct was sufficiently explained as self-defence.
On unfair dismissal, the Tribunal found that the reason for dismissal was conduct and that this was a potentially fair reason. It held that the respondent carried out a reasonable investigation, gave the claimant an opportunity to respond, and that the disciplinary and appeal managers had reasonable grounds for their conclusions. The dismissal for gross misconduct was found to be within the band of reasonable responses.
On disability discrimination, the respondent conceded that the claimant was disabled by reason of PTSD. The Tribunal was not persuaded that the claimant was treated less favourably because of disability, or unfavourably because of something arising from disability. It found that the disciplinary process was concerned with the altercation, that both employees involved were dismissed for physical and verbal assault, and that the evidence did not show that PTSD influenced the dismissal or appeal outcome.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The Tribunal held that the claimant was not unfairly dismissed. It found the respondent dismissed for conduct, a potentially fair reason, and that dismissal fell within the band of reasonable responses. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination under section 13 Equality Act 2010 was dismissed. The respondent conceded disability by reason of PTSD, but the Tribunal was not persuaded that disability was the reason, or part of the reason, for the treatment. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Discrimination arising from disability under section 15 Equality Act 2010 was dismissed. The Tribunal found the evidence did not show that PTSD played a part in the dismissal or influenced the investigation or disciplinary process. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
10 references- Section 94 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Sections 98(1) and 98(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Section 98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- band of reasonable responses
- Iceland Frozen Foods Ltd v Jones 1983 ICR 17
- British Home Stores Limited v Burchell 1980 ICR 303
- Burchell test
- ACAS Code of Practice
- Section 13(1) Equality Act 2010
- Section 15(1) 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.