Mr I Boyles v Mr R Clarke Mavericks Motorcycles Ltd: 1601337/2020 and 1601338/2020
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 28 January 2022 |
| Citation | 1601337/2020 and 1601338/2020 |
| Date | 28 January 2022 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Published date | 21 February 2022 |
| Subject Matter | Disability Discrimination |
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant:
Mr Ian Boyles
Respondents:
Mr Richard Clarke
Mavericks Motorcycles Ltd
Heard at:
Mold & by Video
Link
On: 1st - 4th November 2021
Before:
Members:
Employment Judge R F Powell
Ms Owen
Ms Burge
Representation:
Claimant:
Mr A Roberts, Employment Law Consultant
Respondents:
Ms R Thomas, of counsel
Judgment
The unanimous judgment of the Employment Tribunal is:
1. The Claimant was unfairly dismissed.
2. The Second Respondent made a series of unlawful deductions from
the Claimant’s wages.
3. The Second Respondent failed to provide the statutory particulars of
the claimant’s hours and days of work in May 2017.
4. The claims of discrimination arising from disability are dismissed.
5. The claims of failure to make reasonable adjustments are dismissed.
6. The claim of harassment in respect of requests for copies of the
claimant’s 2019 Med 3 statements is well founded and succeeds, the
remaining claims of harassment are dismissed.
7. The claims of direct discrimination are dismissed.
.
REASONS
Case No - 1601337/2020 & 1601338/2020
2
1. The claimant in this case is Mr Ian Boyles. Mr Boyles was employed by Mavericks
Motorcycles limited on the 25th of April 2016. The major shareholder, and only manager, of
that limited company was Mr Richard Clarke. Mr Boyles resigned, without notice on the 6th
October 2020.
2. On the 9th of June 2020 Mr Boyles presented claims against Mr Richard Clarke and
Mavericks Motorcycles Ltd asserting the following claims:
a. A series of unlawful deductions from wages.
b. Failures to make reasonable adjustments contrary to sections 20 and 21 of the
Equality Act 2010.
c. Harassment for a reason related to disability contrary to section 26 of the Equality
Act 2010.
d. Unfavourable treatment arising from disability contrary to section 15 of the Equality
Act 2010.
e. Failure to provide a written statement of the claimant’s terms and conditions in
accordance with sections 1 and 4 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and section
38 of the Employment Act 2002.
f. After the claimant’s employment came to an end on the 6th October 2020, he was
permitted to amend his claim against Mavericks Motorcycles Ltd by the addition of
a claim for constructive unfair dismissal and a claim, against both respondents, of
direct discrimination.
3. In the bundle of documents, prepared for this final hearing, there are 123 pages
which encompass three preliminary case management hearings and a number of iterations
of further and better particulars and the respondents’ reactions thereto.
4. It is not proportionate to set out in the introduction to this judgment the detail of
the case management in its various stages.
5. The tribunal have read through these documents including the order of Employment
Judge Moore dated 1st of September 2020, the order of Employment Judge Howden-Evans
dated 6th April 2021 and the further order of Employment Judge Moore dated 18th August
2021. Each of these orders demonstrates the tribunal trying to identify, with sufficient
clarity, the issues that would fall to be determined at a final hearing.
6. The last of these, set out a synopsis of each claim; which is found at pages 138 to
143B of the bundle. This document, in conjunction with a permitted further and better
particular of the asserted “PCPs” in respect of the section 20 EqA 2020 claims (pages 143G
and 143 J) have been the foundation of the case, and to which all three parties have
referred in their cross examination, their written submissions and their oral submissions in
closing.
3
7. In addition, to multiple disputes upon the elements of each of the claims noted
above, the respondents also challenged whether many of the claims are within the
employment tribunal's jurisdiction (the respondents arguing that they were presented
outside of the relevant statutory periods for presentation) and the respondents denied that
they knew, or should have known, of the claimant’s disability for the purposes of the section
15 and section 20 and 21 claims of the Equality Act 2010.
8. The respondents admitted that the claimant was a person with the disability of
kidney cancer from February 2019.
Of
9. This claim was heard over a period four days, within that period the tribunal was
asked to consider a bundle of 522 pages and hear from six witnesses whose evidence in chief
was set out in their respective written witness statements and each of whom was cross
examined:
a. Mr Ian Boyles, the claimant.
b. Mr Steven Burnett, a customer of the respondent.
c. Miss Nicola Hudson, a former employee of the respondent between
October 2018 and May 2019.
d. Mr Howard Martin-Taylor, a personal friend of the claimant.
e. Mr Andrew Woolley, a personal friend of the claimant and a customer of
the respondent.
f. Mr Richard Clarke, director and general manager of the first respondent.
10. Mr Burnett’s witness statement had 37 paragraphs, the larger part of that statement is
concerned with his own complaint about the service provided by Mavericks Motorcycles limited. It is
clear that Mr Burnett is deeply dissatisfied with the length of time taken by the respondent and the
standard work.
11. Relevant to the case before us are three of those paragraphs ; paragraph 16 in which he
describes Mr Clarke asking him if he would take the claimant to one of the claimant’s hospital
appointments because Mr Clarke was unable to do so, paragraph 22 in which he describes speaking
to the claimant in the pub and the claimant brought up the issue of his cancer. Lastly, he witnesses
the claimant stating that his family, a few close friends and the employees of Maverick Motorcycles,
including Mr. Clarke, were aware of his condition.
12. Miss Hodgson's evidence described her employment as a service coordinator, the range of
tasks she was required to undertake, that she was presented with extensive To Do List which would
beyond achievement within her working hours, that approximately 3 months after she commenced
employment her role was changed to operations manager which included responsibility for health
and safety and, eventually, finance. She goes on to describe her unhappiness with her work
environment and her decision, after four months employment, to look for alternative employment.
She confirms one aspect of Mr Boyle's evidence; that day tasks of building bikes and manufacturing
parts for bikes took place both on the respondents’ premises and in Mr Boyles home workshop and
states that Mr. Clark spoke highly of Mr Boyle's abilities and engineering skills.
To continue reading
Request your trial