Case 4104072/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Member J McCullagh Tribunal Member AB Grant Mr W Debek v Bosch Rexroth Ltd Scotland — 2019
- Case reference
- 4104072/2019
- Decision date
- 12 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge J Hendry Tribunal
- Venue
- Dundee
- Panel members
- J McCullagh, AB Grant
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Member J McCullagh Tribunal Member AB Grant Mr W Debek
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, a Polish national, started temporary employment as an Associate in the respondent's Assembly Department on 11 February 2019 after completing induction and training in the wash area. On 28 February 2019 he was challenged after damaged cylinder blocks reached the assembly line. The tribunal found that he became angry, refused to hand over his security pass and left the premises via a fire door. By letter dated 1 March 2019 the respondent summarily dismissed him for gross misconduct.
The claimant said he had been overworked, had no manual-handling training or risk assessment, suffered back pain and dizziness, and had been threatened by his team leader. He also said he had made a health and safety disclosure about the wash process. The tribunal found him not to be a particularly credible or reliable witness on those matters, found no evidence of a hospital attendance or injury, and accepted the respondent's evidence that no protected disclosure had been made to Mr Lamont before dismissal. It concluded that the reason for dismissal was the claimant's conduct on 28 February 2019 rather than any health and safety concern.
The Equality Act complaint was based on an alleged remark by an agency worker that the claimant was a 'Polish bastard'. The tribunal rejected that allegation on credibility grounds and because it had not been reported contemporaneously to management. It therefore dismissed both the race discrimination and harassment complaints. The tribunal noted, but did not need to decide, issues about the respondent's section 109 defence; it recorded some concerns about the coverage of policies, the induction process and the level of training, but those observations did not alter the outcome. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The dismissal claim was advanced as an automatic unfair dismissal / protected disclosure case under s.43B and s.103A ERA 1996. The tribunal found that no protected disclosure had been made to Mr Lamont on 28 February 2019 and held that the dismissal was for the claimant's behaviour on that day, including leaving site, refusing to hand over his pass and exiting by the fire door. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination allegation under s.13 Equality Act 2010 arising from the alleged remark 'Polish bastard'. The tribunal rejected the allegation as not credible and found no reliable basis for the claim. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | Harassment allegation under s.26 Equality Act 2010 based on the same alleged racial remark and workplace treatment. The tribunal dismissed it on the same factual findings as the race discrimination complaint. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- s.43B ERA 1996
- s.103A ERA 1996
- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.26 Equality Act 2010
- s.109(4) 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.