Mr M Glynn v Cranswick Country Foods plc T/a Cranswick Continental Foods: 2411756/2018
| Judgment Date | 13 August 2019 |
| Published date | 30 August 2019 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Disability Discrimination |
Case Number: 2411756/18
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: Mr M Glynn
Respondent: Cranswick Country Foods plc t/a Cranswick Continental
Foods
HELD AT: Manchester ON: 22 & 23 July 2019
EFORE: Employment Judge Porter
Mrs C A Titherington
Ms L Atkinson
REPRESENTATION:
Claimant: Mr Smith, non-practising solicitor
Respondent: Mr Wood of counsel
JUDGMENT
The unanimous judgement of the tribunal is that
1. The claim of wrongful dismissal, breach of contract, is not well-founded and
is hereby dismissed;
2. The claims of disability discrimination under Sections 15, 19, 20, 21 and 26
Equality Act 2010 are not well-founded and are hereby dismissed.
3. The claim of unfair dismissal is not well-founded and is hereby dismissed
Case Number: 2411756/18
2
REASONS
1. Written reasons are provided pursuant to the oral request of the claimant’s
representative at the conclusion of the hearing.
Issues to be determined
2. At the outset the parties confirmed that the List of Issues had been recorded by
Employment Judge Tom Ryan at a preliminary hearing on 9 November 2018.
The List of issues were as set out in the Case Management Order, a copy of
which appeared at pages 51-59 in the bundle, and is set out in Appendix 1.
3. Counsel for the respondent noted that paragraph 4.3 of the Case Management
Order reflected the error made by the respondent in the Amended Grounds of
Resistance, in which some other substantial reason was removed from the
original pleadings as a potentially fair reason for dismissal and replaced with
conduct. Counsel for the respondent made application that some other
substantial reason and conduct are considered as alternative potentially fair
reasons for dismissal. The claimant had no objection to this application, which
was allowed.
Submissions
4. Representative for the claimant relied upon written and oral submissions which
the tribunal has considered with care but does not repeat here. In essence it
was orally asserted that:-
4.1. the respondent was using the mobility clause contained in the contract of
employment to avoid redundancy on the closure of the factory;
4.2. the claimant made the respondent aware that he could not travel to Bury
because of his disability. The travel time was between 2 and 2 ¼ hours and
he could not do it;
4.3. the claimant was summarily dismissed when he was asked to give up items
before the end of his shift;
4.4. alternatively this was a constructive dismissal. It was reasonable for the
claimant not to move to Bury because he could not get there because of
his disability. The facts were similar to the case in Kellogg Brown and
Root (UK) Limited v Fitton UKEAT/0205/16. The claimant was unfairly
dismissed;
4.5. the respondent had full knowledge of the claimant’s disability during the
course of employment. It had sufficient information prior to the grievance
hearing, namely, the claimant’s absence in July 2016, the sick note from
To continue reading
Request your trial