Mr D Hulme v Rustins Ltd: 3314397/2020
| Judgment Date | 18 January 2022 |
| Citation | 3314397/2020 |
| Date | 18 January 2022 |
| Published date | 26 January 2022 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Unfair Dismissal |
Case No 3314397/2020
Page 1 of 19
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant:
Mr D Hulme
Respondent:
Rustins Limited
Heard at:
Leicester Hearing Centre, 5a New Walk, Leicester, LE1 6TE
By cloud video platform
On:
6 January 2022
Before:
Employment Judge Adkinson sitting alone
Appearances
For the claimant:
Ms S King, Counsel
For the respondent:
Mr S Proffitt, Counsel
JUDGMENT
After hearing the evidence of the parties and reading their written submissions, and
after the claimant withdrew his claims for breach of contract and holiday pay, IT IS
ORDERED THAT
1. The claims for holiday pay and breach of contract are dismissed;
2. The respondent unfairly dismissed the claimant. However there is a 75%
chance that the respondent would have fairly dismissed him in any event
and so any compensatory award will be reduced accordingly; and so
3. Remedy will be decided at a further hearing to be fixed.
REASONS
1. The claimant claims his dismissal for redundancy was unfair, and that there
was not a redundancy situation anyway. The respondent denies that,
saying that alternatively he was dismissed for a business restructure (i.e.
some other substantial reason), but says even if it were unfairly dismissed,
he would have been dismissed in any event and any remedy should reflect
that.
2. Other claims were withdrawn and I have therefore dismissed them on
withdrawal.
Case No 3314397/2020
Page 2 of 19
Hearing
3. The hearing took place on 6 January 2022 by video link. It was listed for
one day. The time estimate was insufficient. Therefore by agreement I
heard the evidence and invited written submissions before delivering a
reserved judgment with written reasons. If remedy were appropriate, it was
agreed I would list a further hearing. This is the judgment and reasons for
it.
4. Ms S King, Counsel, represented the claimant. Mr S Proffitt, Counsel,
represented the respondent. I am grateful to both for their help.
5. I heard oral evidence from
5.1. Mr D Hulme, the claimant and until dismissal an Area Sales
Manager (“ASM”) with the respondent,
5.2. Mr E Krawitt, the Managing Director of the respondent, and
5.3. Ms S Cope, the National Field Sales Manager and claimant’s
superior until his dismissal. Before July 2019 she was herself an
ASM with the respondent.
I have taken that evidence into account.
6. There was a bundle of documents of about 150 pages. I have taken into
account those to which I have been referred.
7. Each party made written submissions. I am grateful for them and have
taken them into account in reaching my decision.
8. Because the hearing was exclusively by computer we took breaks each
hour for about 5 minutes to allow breaks away from the screen, with 1 hour’s
break for lunch. There were no other adjustments requested. There were
no technical problems worthy of note.
9. Neither party has alleged this was an unfair hearing. I am satisfied it was a
fair hearing.
Issues
10. The following issues arise in relation to liability:
10.1. What was the reason or principal reason for dismissal? The
respondent says the reason was redundancy or some other
substantial reason, namely business reorganisation. It is
disputed that there was a redundancy situation.
10.2. If the reason were redundancy, did the respondent act
reasonably in all the circumstances in treating that as a sufficient
reason to dismiss the claimant?
10.3. If the reason were some other substantial reason, did the
respondent act reasonably in all the circumstances in treating
that as a sufficient reason to dismiss the claimant?
10.4. If the dismissal were unfair, is there a chance that the claimant
would have been fairly dismissed anyway if a fair procedure had
been followed, or for some other reason?
To continue reading
Request your trial