Mr J Walton v GE Aviation Systems Ltd: 1402608/2019
| Judgment Date | 13 November 2020 |
| Published date | 18 November 2020 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Unfair Dismissal |
Case No. 1402608/2019
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
BETWEEN
Claimant Respondent
Mr J Walton AND GE Aviation Systems Limited
JUDGMENT OF THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL
HELD AT Bristol ON 14 to 23 September 2020
EMPLOYMENT JUDGE J Bax
Representation
For the Claimant: Mr R Hignett (Counsel)
For the Respondent: Mr D Mitchell (Counsel)
JUDGMENT
The judgment of the tribunal is that
(1) The Respondent unfairly dismissed the Claimant.
(2) The claim of indirect age discrimination is dismissed upon its withdrawal
by the Claimant.
(3) The claims of direct age discrimination are dismissed.
(4) Directions are given for remedy under a separate order.
REASONS
1. In this case the Claimant Mr Walton, claimed that he had been unfairly
dismissed and that he was discriminated against due to his age. The
Respondent contended that the reason for the dismissal was redundancy,
Case No. 1402608/2019
2
that the dismissal was fair and that it did not discriminate against the
Claimant.
Procedural matters
2. The Claimant presented his claim on 13 June 2019. He notified ACAS of
the dispute on 12 April 2019 and the certificate was issued on 15 May 2019.
3. On 28 August 2020, Employment Judge Fowell conducted a Telephone
Case Management Preliminary Hearing, at which the Claimant confirmed in
that in addition to unfair dismissal he bought claims of direct and indirect
age discrimination. The Claimant alleged that his dismissal, failing to
appoint him to the Account Team Leader role, and failing to include others
in the pool of those at risk of redundancy were acts of direct discrimination.
The Respondent confirmed that it did not rely upon a defence of justification
for either discrimination claim.
4. At a further Telephone Case Management Preliminary Hearing on 28
August 2020, before Employment Judge Midgley, the parties confirmed that
they consented to the claim being heard by a judge sitting alone. At the start
of the final hearing the Judge spoke to Counsel for the Claimant in open
court, with Counsel for the Respondent attending by telephone about the
need for written consent to hear the case without lay members. Written
consent was provided by both parties, by way of e-mails dated 14
September 2020 at 1042 and 1049, respectively. The issues were
confirmed as being those identified by Employment Judge Fowell. It was
clarified that the reference to discriminatory assumptions was not a
separate allegation of age discrimination, but that they tended to show that
the dismissal was discriminatory.
5. During the course of the hearing the Claimant confirmed that he relied upon
the Power role for the purposes of the attempts that the Respondent should
have made to find alternative employment for him. Further the Claimant, in
relation to the pool of those at risk of redundancy, for the purposes of his
direct discrimination and redundancy claim, said that only Mr Carlisle and
Mr Backx should have been included or were relied upon as comparators.
On the sixth day of the hearing the Claimant withdrew his claim of indirect
discrimination and that claim was dismissed upon his withdrawal.
6. Shortly before closing submissions on liability, the Claimant applied to
prevent the Respondent from arguing that the Claimant had fabricated the
evidence of conversations between Mr Luley and Mr Cyr. The application
was dismissed. The matters had been put in cross-examination, it was not
a new legal argument and was a potential submission based on the facts.
The veracity of the evidence was something that would be determined when
I made findings of fact.
Case No. 1402608/2019
3
7. After the closing submissions, time was taken for deliberations and it was
agreed with the parties that an oral Judgment would be given on 24
September 2020 by way of Cloud Video Platform.
The evidence
8. I heard from the Claimant in person, and from Mr Luley on his behalf via
CVP. For the Respondent, I heard from Ms Helm (HR support for the
redundancy process), Mr Anderson (grievance officer), Mr Evans
(grievance appeal officer), Mr Moll (Claimant’s line manager and
redundancy consultation officer) via Microsoft Teams, Mr McKechnie
(appeal against dismissal officer) and Mr Cyr (head of SMBD and Mr Moll’s
line manager) via Microsoft Teams. I was also provided with a bundle of
approximately 700 pages, any reference within these reasons in square
brackets is a reference to a page in the bundle.
The facts
9. There was a degree of conflict on the evidence. I heard the witnesses give
their evidence. I found the following facts proven on the balance of
probabilities after considering the whole of the evidence, both oral and
documentary, and after listening to the factual and legal submissions made
by and on behalf of the respective parties.
10. The Respondent is a global supplier of integrated systems and services for
civil and military aircraft and is part of the global General Electric group of
companies. The Claimant’s employment started on 25 October 2010 in the
role of Executive Counsel, Government Relations. Latterly the Claimant
was the leader of the European Customer Account Manager team as part
of the Sales and Marketing department within the Respondent’s Military
Systems Operation (“MSO”) Division. Within the Respondent there are
three separate sales divisions: Military (MSO), Commercial Engines and
Avionics. The MSO division employed people globally, including the United
States of America, Europe, Asia, South America and the Middle East.
11. Within the Respondent are various role bands. The Executive Band role
(“EB”) is a senior role, which is normally reserved for people managing
significant client accounts or significant areas of business with large teams.
Above EB are the Senior Executive Band and Officer. Below EB is the
Senior Professional Band (“SPB”).
12. The Claimant’s role was an executive band role and reported directly to the
Executive Sales Director for the MSO division, who was also in an executive
band role. The Claimant was based at Cheltenham. The Claimant was
responsible for a team of Customer Account Managers, each of whom had
To continue reading
Request your trial