MM v British Airways plc: 3304465/2018
| Judgment Date | 16 October 2019 |
| Citation | 3304465/2018 |
| Published date | 21 October 2019 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Unlawful Deduction from Wages |
Case Number: 3304465/2018
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant Respondent
MM
v
British Airways PLC
Heard at: Amersham On: 16, 17, 18, 19, 24 and 25 September
26 September 2019 (in chambers)
Before: Employment Judge Manley
Members: Mr A Kapur
Mr D Bean
Appearances
For the Claimant: In person
For the Respondent: Mr S Margo, Counsel
RESERVED JUDGMENT
1. The claimant was dismissed for a reason relating to his conduct and that
dismissal was not unfair.
2. There were no acts of harassment or discrimination relating to the
claimant’s religion and his claims for religious harassment and/or
discrimination are dismissed.
3. There were no acts of sex harassment or discrimination and the claimant’s
claims for sex harassment and direct discrimination are dismissed.
4. The claimant is not entitled to any payment for holiday pay and his unlawful
deduction of wages claim is dismissed.
5. The respondent was entitled to dismiss the claimant summarily without
notice because he committed an act of gross misconduct. The claim for
breach of contract is dismissed.
6. All the claimant’s claims are now dismissed.
Case Number: 3304465/2018
2
REASONS
Introduction and issues
1. The claimant brought claims against the respondent after his dismissal in
November 2017.
2. At a preliminary hearing in August 2018 attempts were made to draw up a
list of issues but further information was needed, and a further hearing was
therefore arranged on 19 March 2019 after the claimant had provided
information.
3. The issues were then recorded but redactions were needed after an
anonymity order was made. With those redactions, the issues are as
follows:
4. Unfair dismissal claim
4.1 The respondent agrees that the claimant qualifies to claim unfair
dismissal, this part of the claim is in time and the claimant was
dismissed.
4.2 What was the reason for the dismissal? The respondent asserts that
it was a reason related to conduct which is a potentially fair reason
for section 98(2) Employment Rights Act 1996. That is the
respondent relies on a breach of its dignity at work policy and abusive
rude and offensive behaviour in the presence of colleagues in the
work place. Factually, the respondent says that the claimant exposed
an intimate part of his body in the workplace, in an unsolicited
manner and he allowed photographs to be taken of it by others. The
respondent must prove that it had a genuine belief in this misconduct
and that this was the reason for dismissal.
4.3 The claimant says that the respondent dismissed him because from
January 2016 to September 2017 he complained to the management
through various statements, WhatsApp messages and face to face.
He says the respondent dismissed him because of his complaints
about sexual harassment and bullying and racial abuse.
4.4 Did the respondent hold that belief in the claimant’s misconduct on
reasonable grounds? The burden of proof is neutral here, but it helps
to know the claimant’s challenges to the fairness of the dismissal in
advance and they are identified as follows:
4.4.1 The allegation for which the respondent now says it dismissed
the claimant had already been known about and dealt with.
The respondent brought the same picture that had been dealt
with in 2016 back into issue in 2017.
To continue reading
Request your trial