Mr Alastair Logan v BAE Systems Surface Ships Ltd: 4105086/2016
| Judgment Date | 12 January 2018 |
| Subject Matter | Working Time Regulations |
| Citation | 4105086/2016 |
| Published date | 06 March 2019 |
| Date | 12 January 2018 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
E.T. Z4 (WR)
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND)
Case No: 4105086/2016
Held in Glasgow on 31 May, 1, 2, 7,19, 20, 21, 23, 28 June 3, 4 & 5 July 2017
Employment Judge: Shona MacLean
Members: Mr P O’Hagan
5
Mr A Ross
Mr Alastair Logan Claimant
In Person
10
BAE Systems Surface Ships Ltd Respondent
Represented by:
Mr G Mitchell
Solicitor
JUDGMENT OF THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL
15
The judgment of the Employment Tribunal is that the claimant’s claims of under
Section 207F and Section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and Section 13,
Section 26 and Sections 27 of the Equality Act 2010 are dismissed.
REASONS
Background
20
1. The claimant presented a form ET1 (the claim form) to the Tribunal on 6
October 2016. It identified his employer as being “BAE Systems Plc – BAE
Systems Maritime? Naval Ships”. It stated that the claimant had been
employed from 23 March 2015 until 20 July 2016 when he was unfairly
dismissed. The claimant complained of discrimination on the grounds of
25
disability contrary to section 13, section 26 and section 27 of the Equality
Act 2010 (the EqA), that he was owed notice pay, holiday pay and other
payments.
2. The claim form referred to claims being based on an alleged breach by
his employer of:
30
4105086/16 page 2
a. The Employment Relations Act 1999 (Blacklist) Regulations 2010
(the Blacklist Regulations).
b. The Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (the PIDA).
c. Section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (the ERA).
d. Section 4 of the ERA.
5
e. Section 103 of the ERA.
f. The Working Time Regulations 1998 (the WTR).
3. In a form ET3 (the response form) issued by the respondent on 4
November 2016 it was contended that the BAE Systems Surface Ships
Limited had employed the claimant throughout his period of employment.
10
The response form also contained a denial that the respondent had
unfairly dismissed the claimant or had discriminated against him because
of the protected characteristic of disability. It was denied that the
respondent had subjected the claimant to harassment or that he had been
victimised. The respondent also denied that during the claimant’s
15
employment it had breached any of the Blacklist Regulations, the PIDA,
the ERA or the WTR. Generally, it denied that the claimant had suffered
any detriment by the respondent.
4. A preliminary hearing (case management) took place on 9 December
2016 (the December PH). It was scheduled for two hours but lasted for
20
more than five hours. It was noted that the claimant accepted that he was
employed by the respondent. The claimant indicated that he was not
persisting with his claims under section 1 of ERA, his claim of holiday pay
and his claim that the respondent had breached the provisions of the
WTR. These claims were dismissed.
25
5. It was agreed that during the claimant’s employment he did not have a
disability envisaged by section 6 of EqA. It was also agreed that the
claimant’s claims in respect of sections 13, 26 and 27 of EqA were based
on the claimant’s allegation that the respondent perceived that he had a
disability as envisaged by section 6 of EqA and that having obtained such
30
4105086/16 page 3
a perception the respondent had acted towards him in a way which was
based on that perception of him having a disability (perceived disability).
6. The claimant’s unfair dismissal claim was founded on alleged procedural
unfairness and on the real reason being a combination of any other breach
of the Backlist Regulation, the PIDA and the EqA and as such was
5
automatically unfair dismissal.
7. Tribunal orders were issued for additional information in respect of the
claimant’s claims of breach of the Blacklist Regulations; the PIDA; and the
automatic unfair dismissal provisions of the ERA.
8. A deposit order of £500 was issued as a condition of continuing to
10
advance the allegation that the respondent had breached the provisions
of section 4 of ERA.
9. The claimant had found alternative employment and therefore his
preferred remedy was compensation. Tribunal orders were issued for the
claimant to provided clarification of whether “the personal injury” to which
15
he referred in section 9.2 of the claim form and/or the compensation in
respect of psychiatric damage on the part of the “injury to feelings award”
or whether they were distinct heads of claim and if so on what basis such
claims were made that the Tribunal could determine whether it had
jurisdiction to consider such distinct heads of claim.
20
10. The claimant’s response to the Tribunal’s orders for additional information
extended to 456 pages. The deposit order was not complied with and the
claim under section 4 of the ERA was struck out.
11. A further preliminary hearing (case management) took place on 22 March
2017 (the March PH). The note of the March PH records that the main
25
issues were:
a. The respondent’s case was that the claimant was dismissed
because of conduct. The claimant did not have qualifying service for
a standard unfair dismissal claim.
To continue reading
Request your trial