Mr J Gillies v Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd: 2200347/2022 and 22023827/2022
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 24 January 2023 |
| Date | 24 January 2023 |
| Published date | 07 February 2023 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Citation | 2200347/2022 and 22023827/2022 |
| Subject Matter | Age Discrimination |
Case Numbers: 2200347/2022 & 22023827/2022
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: Mr John Gillies
Respondent: Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd
Heard at: London Central Employment Tribunal (in person)
On: 17, 18, 19, 20, 23 and 24 January 2023
Before: Employment Judge E Burns
Mr S Godecharle
Mr D Schofield
Representation
For the Claimant: Sam Healy, Counsel
For the Respondent: Sebastian Purnell, Counsel
JUDGMENT
The unanimous judgment of the Employment Tribunal is that the Claimant’s claims
fail and are dismissed.
REASONS
THE ISSUES
1. The issues to be determined were discussed and at the start of the hearing.
Some amendments were agreed at the start of the hearing. The agreed
issues were as set out in the appendix to this judgment.
THE HEARING
2. The Claimant gave evidence. He also called David Barnes, a Programme
Engineering Manager for the Respondent and union representative for the
TSSA union to give evidence on his behalf.
Case Numbers: 2200347/2022 & 22023827/2022
2
3. For the Respondent we heard evidence from:
• Cameron Thick, Financial Controller (Sussex & Property)
• Charlie Walker, Senior Network Delivery Manager
• Ed Salmon, Programme Manager – Joint Industry Efficiency &
Collaboration
• Zubair Kari, former Senior Finance Business Partner
• Mark Smith, Head of Human Resources, Kent Route Managed Stations
and Chief of Staff
• Naomi Roycroft, former Finance Director
4. Ms Roycroft’s statement had been served late, and the Claimant objected
to it being admitted in evidence. We heard submissions from both parties
and decided to allow it in. We gave oral reasons for our decision.
5. There was an agreed hearing bundle which grew to 811 pages when an
additional document was admitted into evidence during the course of the
hearing with the agreement of the parties. We read the evidence in the
bundle to which we were referred and refer to the page numbers of key
documents that we relied upon when reaching our decision in brackets
below.
6. Both parties provided helpful written closing submissions and we thank them
for this.
FINDINGS OF FACT
7. Having considered all the evidence, we find the following facts on a balance
of probabilities.
8. The parties will note that not all the matters that they told us about are
recorded in our findings of fact. That is because we have limited them to
points that are relevant to the legal issues.
Background
9. The Respondent owns, operates and develops the UK’s national railway
infrastructure. It is a large employer with around 38,000 employees
nationally, a large HR function (250 people in total) and an in-house legal
department.
10. The Claimant commenced employment with the Respondent on 30 May
2000 (129). At the material times for the Tribunal’s purposes, he was
employed as a Finance Business Partner. This was a Band 4 role. The
Respondent’s banding system has eight bands with Band 1 being the
highest.
Case Numbers: 2200347/2022 & 22023827/2022
3
11. The Claimant’s date of birth is 2 November 1961 (7).
12. The Respondent has a Grievance Policy and Procedure (149 - 154) and a
Performance Improvement Policy and Procedure (155 – 162).
13. In addition to the Performance Improvement Procedure, it has an annual
appraisal process. Called a performance review process, its employees
should have an interim review in or around September each year and an
annual performance review in or around April each year. Employees are
given one of five performance ratings which could be:
• Outstanding
• Exceeded
• Good
• Partially Achieved (this was renamed in March 2013 from
Performance Improvement Required)
• Significant Performance Improvement Required
There is also an alternative for employees new in post which is “Developing
in role”.
14. The Respondent encourages line mangers to raise performance concerns
with employees as soon as they occur. The thinking is to ensure that
anything said at an appraisal does not come as a surprise. Where an
employee is not performing to the required standard, he or she will be put
on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP). This may arise as a result of a
low performance rating at an appraisal, but can equally arise at any time
outside the appraisal process.
15. The Claimant had several line managers during the period with which the
Tribunal was concerned, as follows:
• In 2018 / 2019 he was line managed by Rebekah Baldock. When Ms
Baldock was absent on maternity leave, he was managed by her
maternity leave cover, Karrar Alizaza.
• He transferred into the wider group managed by Naomi Rycroft, Finance
Director (Band 1) in June 2020 and was line managed by Debbie Brown,
Senior Finance Business Partner (Band 3). Ms Brown reported to a line
manager who reported to Ms Rycroft. Ms Rycroft reported to Peter
Austin.
• Cameron Thick moved into Ms Rycroft’s group as the Financial
Controller (Band 2) in April 2021. He was responsible for line
management of the Claimant’s line managers.
To continue reading
Request your trial