Mr J Beeley v Outokumpu Stainless Ltd: 1802164/2020
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 22 July 2021 |
| Citation | 1802164/2020 |
| Date | 22 July 2021 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Published date | 29 July 2021 |
| Subject Matter | Unfair Dismissal |
Case Number: 1802164/2020
10.5 Reserved judgment with reasons – rule 61 March 2017
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: Mr J Beeley
Respondent: Outokumpu Stainless Ltd
Heard by Hybrid hearing (Sheffield) On: 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 June 2021
16 June 2021 (in chambers)
Before: Employment Judge Brain
Members: Mr Q Shah
Mr L Priestley
Representation
Claimant: Dr M Ahmad, Counsel
Respondent: Ms A Palmer, Counsel
RESERVED JUDGMENT
The Judgment of the Employment Tribunal is that:
1. Upon the claimant’s complaint of unfair dismissal:
1.1. The claimant was dismissed by the respondent by reason of
redundancy.
1.2. The respondent did not unfairly dismiss the claimant and accordingly
his unfair dismissal complaint stands dismissed.
2. Upon the claimant’s complaints brought under the Equality Act 2010:
2.1. The claimant’s complaint that he was unfavourably treated for
something arising in consequence of disability under section 15 of the
2010 Act fails and stands dismissed.
2.2. The claimant’s complaint that the respondent failed to comply with the
duty to make reasonable adjustments brought under sections 20 and
21 of the 2010 Act fails and stands dismissed.
Case Number: 1802164/2020
10.5 Reserved judgment with reasons – rule 61 March 2017
2
REASONS
Introduction
1. The Tribunal received evidence in this case over four days between 7 and
10 June 2021 inclusive. The Tribunal then received helpful written and oral
submissions from counsel on 11 June 2021. We reserved our judgment.
We now give reasons for the Judgment that we have reached.
2. This matter has benefited from two case management preliminary hearings.
The first came before Employment Judge Deeley on 30 June 2020. The
minutes of that hearing are in the bundle at pages 61 to 63. The second
preliminary hearing came before Employment Judge Little on 2 September
2020 (at pages 70AA to 70DD).
3. Appended to Employment Judge Deeley’s minute was a draft list of issues.
This was subsequently revised. The updated and final list of issues is at
pages 68 to 70. We shall consider the list of issues in more detail
subsequently.
4. At this stage it suffices to say that the claimant pursues complaints of unfair
dismissal (under the Employment Rights Act 1996) and disability
discrimination (under the Equality Act 2010). It is not in dispute that the
claimant was a disabled person for the purposes of section 6 of the 2010
Act at all material times because of the mental impairment of anxiety and
depression.
5. We shall firstly make our findings of fact. We shall then go on to look at the
issues in the case and the relevant law. Finally, we shall set out the
conclusions that we have reached by application of the relevant law to the
factual findings that we have made in order to arrive at a determination upon
the issues in the case.
6. The Tribunal heard evidence from the claimant. We also heard live
evidence called on his behalf from:
David Brooks. He is a current employee of the respondent. He
works for the respondent as a technical manager of the Sheffield
melting shop. (This is known within the respondent as ‘SMACC’
which stands for ‘stainless melting and continuous casting’).
Jonathan Holmwood. He worked in SMACC from 2013 in the
capacity of an engineer and then chief engineer. He was appointed
interim general manager of SMACC with effect from 1 January 2018.
7. Mr Brooks and Mr Holmwood both attended to give evidence before the
Employment Tribunal pursuant to witness orders. They had not provided
witness statements in advance and their evidence in chief was elicited from
them by Mr Ahmad at the hearing.
8. On behalf of the claimant, written witness statements were received from:
Ian Wallace. He held the position of SMACC raw materials manager
and worked alongside the claimant during the time that the claimant
Case Number: 1802164/2020
10.5 Reserved judgment with reasons – rule 61 March 2017
3
held the position of general manager of SMACC between 2009 and
the end of 2017.
David Hall. He is a current employee of the respondent.
Michael Marcanio. He is employed as the quality manager of
Outokumpu Stainless Bar in the United States of America.
Pekka Eerkkila. He is now retired. He worked alongside the claimant
between 2002 and 2016 during the time that Mr Eerkkila held several
positions as a member of the respondent’s executive committee.
David Scaife. He is employed by the respondent as a ‘vice president
– business area controller, BA long products.’
9. In addition to these witness statements, the Tribunal was presented with a
letter signed by six members of the SMACC trade union committee.
10. All of the written witness statements referred to in paragraphs 8 and 9 were
agreed. Accordingly, none of those individuals were cross-examined by Ms
Palmer.
11. On behalf of the respondent, the Tribunal heard evidence from the following:
Martin Pinder. He is now retired. He held the position of vice
president of human resources for the United Kingdom between 2001
and 2018.
Alistair McCubbin. He is employed by the respondent as the head of
health and safety.
Johann Steiner. He is employed by Outokumpu Holding Germany
GmbH as executive vice president – HR and organisation and
development. He has held this role since February 2013.
(Mr Steiner gave evidence by way of video link from his home in
Germany).
Philip Rodrigo. He holds the position of European head of human
resources.
Findings of fact
12. The claimant has had a very long career with the respondent and its
predecessors. He started work for the respondent on 1 September 1975.
As has been said, he was appointed general manager of SMACC in 2009.
In circumstances to which we shall come, he became ‘general manager,
health and safety, long products’ on 1 January 2018. It was the latter role
which he held when he was dismissed because of redundancy with effect
from 17 January 2020.
13. The essence of the evidence given by Mr Brooks and Mr Holmwood and of
the agreed witness statements was to the effect that the claimant was a very
able and competent employee, particularly in his role as general manager
of SMACC. This was not disputed by the respondent.
14. However, performance issues did arise during the claimant’s final year or
so working as general manager of SMACC. These performance issues, as
we shall see, resulted in the claimant’s move to a new role as ‘general
manager, health and safety, long products’ with effect from 1 January 2018.
To continue reading
Request your trial