Mr N Lawrence v Muller UK & Ireland Group LLP: 2408122/2020
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 24 February 2022 |
| Date | 24 February 2022 |
| Citation | 2408122/2020 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Published date | 15 March 2022 |
| Subject Matter | Breach of Contract |
RESERVED JUDGMENT
Case No. 2408122/2020
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant:
Mr N Lawrence
Respondent:
Muller UK & Ireland Group LLP
Heard at:
Manchester (remotely, by CVP)
On: 30 June 2021
31 July 2021
Before:
Employment Judge Warren
REPRESENTATION:
Claimant: Mr A Macmillan of Counsel
Respondent: Mr D Piddington of Counsel
JUDGMENT
The judgment of the Tribunal is that:
1. The claim for wrongful dismissal is dismissed.
2. The claim of unfair dismissal is dismissed.
REASONS
Background
1. By an ET1 claim form presented to the Tribunal on 19 June 2020 the
claimant, Mr Neil Lawrence alleged that the respondent had unfairly dismissed him
for gross misconduct and in breach of contract failed to give him notice/notice pay.
2. The respondent in a response asserted that the claimant was guilty of gross
misconduct and was not therefore contractually entitled to notice pay, and further
that he had been dismissed fairly for misconduct, a potentially fair reason within the
Employment Rights Act 1996 (“ERA”).
The Evidence
3. I received an agreed bundle with more than 550 pages within it. I had written
witness statements from the claimant and from the respondent’s witnesses, Miss
RESERVED JUDGMENT
Case No. 2408122/2020
2
McNamara and Mr N McCabe, all of whom gave evidence and were cross examined.
I reached my conclusions based on the evidential test, the balance of probabilities.
4. The evidential burden, as always in an unfair dismissal case, lay with the
respondent to show the reason for dismissal, and their belief in that reason, and then
took into account that the burden of proof became neutral between the parties.
5. There was an agreed List of Issues and subsequent to the hearing the parties
presented 47 pages of submissions. I have taken all of those submissions into
account in reaching my conclusions.
6. When considering the evidence, I concluded, on the balance of probabilities,
that the witness statements of the respondent and their live evidence was the more
credible. The claimant, I found to be the less reliable witness.
7. Whilst not going through every piece of evidence individually, I would simply
say at this stage that one example of his lack of reliability was that the claimant
asserted that the database searched by the respondent for up-to-date safety
documentation, was on Q-Pulse. He asserted that he had never received formal
training on working on Q-Pulse and nor had he been instructed during his
employment to use it to store important documents such as the evacuation plan.
The claimant asserted that he stored his documents on the S drive instead. The
evidence before the Tribunal was that Carole McNamara had confirmed a search of
the S drive had come back empty and the appeals officer had carried out his own
search of the S drive and, like Ms McNamara, had not found the fire evacuation plan
which the claimant asserted he had put there.
8. I found both Ms McNamara and Mr McCabe (the appeals officer) to be
straightforward and credible witnesses. If neither of them could find the fire
evacuation plan on the S drive then it would be fair to say that it was not there,
particularly as Mr McCabe made use of the company’s IT department to assist him.
List of Issues
9. The issues for the Tribunal to determine are as follows:
Wrongful Dismissal
(1) Did the claimant’s conduct amount to gross misconduct? (If so, the
respondent was entitled to terminate the contract without notice).
(2) What, if any, damages should the claimant receive for being dismissed
without notice?
Unfair Dismissal
(3) The respondent understands there is no dispute as to the reason for
dismissal:
3.1 Conduct – a potentially fair reason within the meaning of section
98(2)(b) Employment Rights Act 1996.
To continue reading
Request your trial