Mr D Cartledge v Amazon UK Services Ltd: 2401052/2021
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 28 March 2022 |
| Date | 28 March 2022 |
| Citation | 2401052/2021 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Published date | 20 April 2022 |
| Subject Matter | Unfair Dismissal |
Decision and Reasons
Case No. 2401052/2021
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant:
Mr Derren Cartledge
Respondent:
Amazon UK Services Limited
Heard at:
Manchester
On: 24 & 25 February 2022
Before:
Judge Abigail Holt (sitting alone)
REPRESENTATION:
Claimant: Mr Diarmuid Bunting (Counsel)
Respondent: Mr Ronnie Dennis (Counsel)
JUDGMENT
The judgment of the Tribunal is that:
I. The claimant was not unfairly dismissed and so the claim for
unfair dismissal does not succeed and this claim is
dismissed.
II. The claim for outstanding holiday pay is dismissed.
REASONS
Introduction
1. The Claimant was employed by the respondent as an Associate/Picker from 16
October 2017 until he was dismissed for gross misconduct on 28 October 2020 at the
Respondent’s “MAN2” warehouse premises/”fulfilment centre” in Warrington. The
claim arises from an allegation that the Claimant drove dangerously in the
Respondent’s car park late at night on 22 July 2020 and which resulted in a finding of
gross misconduct by the Respondent. The Claimant alleges that the dismissal was
unfair. The Respondent alleged that his dismissal was fair by reason of gross
misconduct.
Decision and Reasons
Case No. 2401052/2021
2
Claims and Issues
2. The issues that I have to determine are:
i. What was the principal reason for the claimant’s dismissal and was it a
potentially fair reason under section 98 Employment Rights Act 1996?
The respondent relies upon the Claimant’s conduct pursuant to section
98(1) and (2)(b).
ii. Did the respondent act reasonably in all the circumstances in treating
the Claimant’s driving on 22 July 2020 as a sufficient reason to dismiss
the Claimant, in accordance with equity and the substantial merits of the
case? Relevant to this issue will be questions as to:
a. Was the Respondent’s investigation reasonable?
b. Were the Respondent’s grounds for dismissal reasonable?
c. Did the Respondent follow a reasonable procedure?
d. Did the Respondent’s decision to dismiss the Claimant fall
within the range of reasonable responses?
iii. Is there a chance that the Claimant would have been fairly dismissed
anyway if a fair procedure had been followed? If so, should the
Claimant’s compensation be reduced and by what percentage?
iv. What remedy should be awarded (if the Claimant succeeds in his claim)?
3. I note that the Claimant argued that, in order to be fair, the dismissal must have
been a fair response to the misconduct in question and submitted that the respondent
failed to consider different/lesser sanctions contained within their disciplinary policy.
4. The Claimant also argued that the issues listed at para 2(iii) and (iv)
immediately above, that is, whether the Claimant would have been fairly dismissed in
any event even if a fair procedure had been followed (commonly referred to as Polkey),
should be considered alongside the other liability issues. I announced at the end of
the hearing on 25 February 2022 when I reserved my decision that the final issue, that
of remedy, would only be determined if the Claimant's claim succeeded.
Procedure
5. The Claimant was represented by Mr Bunting at the hearing. Mr Dennis
represented the Respondent.
6. The hearing was a face-to-face. There were no problems with the verbal
communication issues which were clarified as the hearing progressed.
7. I was provided with an agreed bundle of documents (running to page 122A).
The bundle had been prepared in advance of the hearing, but unfortunately it was only
made available to me at 10:30 am on the day of the hearing, a factor which contributed
to my having to reserve my decision. I have referred to page numbers in the bundle in
brackets: [eg 123]. I was also provided with a separate bundle of witness statements.
To continue reading
Request your trial