Mr M Campbell v Securitas Security Services (UK) Ltd: 4104258/2020
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 16 July 2021 |
| Citation | 4104258/2020 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Published date | 12 August 2021 |
| Subject Matter | Unfair Dismissal |
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND)
Case Number: 4104258/2020
5
Hearing held at Glasgow on 22 – 25 June 2021
Deliberations: 28 and 29 June 2021
10
Employment Judge D Hoey
Tribunal Member A Grant
Tribunal Member R Dearle
15
Mr Martin Campbell Claimant
Represented by:
Mr Horan
(Counsel)
Instructed by
20
Messrs Unionline
Securitas Security Services (UK) Limited Respondent
Represented by:
Mrs Young
25
(Counsel)
Employed by
Respondent
30
JUDGMENT OF THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL
The unanimous judgment of the Employment Tribunal is each of the claims is ill
founded and each is dismissed.
REASONS
35
1. The claimant had raised claims for unfair dismissal and a breach of section
15 (unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of
disability) and sections 20 and 21 (the duty to make reasonable adjustments)
of the Equality Act 2010.
Case No.: 4104258/2020 Page 2
2. The hearing was conducted remotely via Cloud Video Platform (CVP) with the
claimant’s agent, the claimant and the respondent’s agent attending the entire
hearing, with witnesses attending as necessary, all being able to contribute to
the hearing fairly. There were a number of connection issues and IT concerns
5
but these were overcome with the parties working together to ensure the
hearing could fairly proceed. Breaks were taken during the evidence to ensure
the parties were able to put all relevant questions to the witnesses. While
there were some connection issues, these were overcome. The Tribunal was
satisfied that the hearing had been conducted in a fair and appropriate
10
manner, with the practice direction on remote hearings being followed, such
that a decision could be made on the basis of the evidence led.
Case management
3. At the start of the hearing it was clear that the issues to be determined had
not been focussed. No statement of agreed facts had been produced and
15
there were a number of issues with regard to the productions.
4. The respondent’s agent asked to introduce a number of documents that had
been produced late. The claimant’s agent objected to inclusion of the
documents. We decided to allow the documents as it was in the interests of
20
justice to allow them to be produced but we gave the claimant’s agent time to
take instructions in relation to them to ensure the parties were on an equal
footing. The parties were given until the start of the second day to finalise the
list of issues, the statement of agreed facts and the productions. They worked
together to do so and no further issues arose.
25
5. We agreed a timetable for the hearing of evidence and the parties worked
together to assist the Tribunal in achieving the overriding objective, in dealing
with matters justly and fairly taking account of the issues, cost and
proportionality.
30
Case No.: 4104258/2020 Page 3
6. A statement of agreed facts and a list of issues were produced which assisted
the Tribunal and the parties in focussing the issues in this case. Robust case
management ensured that the Hearing was concluded within the allocated
time (and the Tribunal sat earlier and later in the days it heard evidence to
ensure this was done).
5
Issues to be determined
7. The issues to be determined are as follows (which is based on the agreed list
and which has been revised to reflect the specific requirements of the
10
legislation).
Unfair dismissal
1. What was the reason for the claimant’s dismissal?
2. If that reason is capability on the grounds of ill health, was it reasonable
(having regard to section 98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996) for the
15
respondent to have dismissed the claimant, and, in particular, given
that:-
a. The respondent dismissed the claimant when the employer was in
receipt of their own Occupational Health Report by their own GP
confirming that with a modification of the claimant’s terms and
20
conditions of employment and shift pattern
b. Presenting as an alternative to dismissal, a zero hours contract
that meant that his income would reduce from a guaranteed £378
per week to zero, and with even less of security and control over
shift pattern and locations of work where he was asked to
25
undertake his duties and with even less of security and control over
shift pattern and locations of work where he was asked to
undertake his duties
To continue reading
Request your trial