Mr D Barrow v Kellog Brown & Root (UK) Ltd: 2303683/2018
| Judgment Date | 14 December 2020 |
| Citation | 2303683/2018 |
| Date | 14 December 2020 |
| Published date | 11 January 2021 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Unfair Dismissal |
Case No: 2303683/18/V
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
BETWEEN
CLAIMANT
V
RESPONDENT
Mr D Barrow
Kellog Brown & Root (UK)
Limited
Heard at:
London South
Employment Tribunal
On:
21, 22, 23, 25, 28 & 29 September
and 2 October 2020
In Chambers on 12 and 13
November 2020
Before:
Members:
Employment Judge Hyams-Parish
Ms J Jerram and Ms G Mitchell
Representation:
For the Claimant:
Ms L Bone (Counsel)
For the Respondent:
Ms S Tharoo (Counsel)
RESERVED JUDGMENT
1. The claim of unfair dismissal (s.98 ERA) is well founded and succeeds.
2. The claim of direct disability discrimination (s.13 EQA) fails and is
dismissed.
3. The claim of disability related harassment (s.26 EQA) is well founded and
succeeds to the extent set out below.
4. The claim of unfavourable treatment for something arising in consequence
of disability (s.15 EQA) is well founded and succeeds to the extent set out
below.
5. The claim of failing to make reasonable adjustments (s.20 EQA) fails and is
Case No: 2303683/18/V
2
dismissed.
6. The claim of victimisation (s.27 EQA) fails and is dismissed.
REASONS
Claims and Issues
1. By a claim form presented to the Tribunal on 11 October 2018, the Claimant
brings claims of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination against the
Respondent.
2. The following claims and issues were agreed at the outset of the hearing
1
:
A. Unfair dismissal (s.98 Employment Rights Act 1996 (“ERA”))
i. Did the Respondent genuinely believe that the Claimant had caused
a breakdown in trust and confidence justifying his dismissal for some
other substantial reason?
ii. Did the Respondent have reasonable grounds for that belief?
iii. At the time of forming that belief had the Respondent carried out as
much investigation as was reasonable?
iv. Was the dismissal procedurally fair?
v. Did dismissal fall within a band of reasonable responses?
vi. Should there be a Polkey reduction of the compensatory award?
vii. Should there be a reduction of compensation on the grounds of
contributory fault?
B. Knowledge of disability (s.6 Equality Act 2010 (“EQA”))
i. When did the Respondent know, or ought reasonably to have known,
that the Claimant was a disabled person within the meaning of s.6
EQA?
C. Direct disability discrimination (s.13 EQA)
i. Did the Respondent treat the Claimant less favourably than it treated,
1
These have been taken from the list of issues agreed and given to the Tribunal on the first day of the hearing, but with some tidying
up and some unnecessary drafting deleted.
Case No: 2303683/18/V
3
or would have treated others (in this case, a hypothetical
comparator)? The less favourable treatment relied on is as follows:
a. The treatment of the Claimant during the meeting of 6
December 2017, including stating to the Claimant that he was
going to be dismissed and without any reason;
b. The Claimant’s exclusion from the workplace;
c. The humiliating treatment of the Claimant in escorting him
from the office in full view of colleagues and subordinates;
d. Refusal and/or failure to use the contractual disciplinary
and/or capability procedures;
e. Grading the Claimant as “usually meets expectations” in his
performance review;
f. Failure to pay the Claimant a bonus under the LTI and under
the STI in March 2018;
g. Criticism of the Claimant for not being able to attend the
meetings convened for 15 March and 23 April 2018;
h. The arrangements for the meeting with Mr Simmonite,
including inviting the Claimant to meetings during his
chemotherapy treatment;
i. Reliance on the Claimant’s behaviour under the effect of
medication in considering the decision to dismiss;
j. Not giving due account for the Claimant’s disability and
treatment in making the decision to dismiss;
k. Refusal and/or failure to engage with the Claimant’s
allegations of unfair treatment and discrimination;
l. The unfair treatment of the Claimant as set out at paragraphs
94-100 of the Amended Particulars of Claim;
m. The decision to dismiss the Claimant;
n. Failure to consider the Claimant’s appeal in a reasonable
period;
o. Failure to take into account the impact of its unfair and/or
discriminatory treatment on the Claimant in making the
To continue reading
Request your trial