Mr S Salmon v Confederation of Passenger Transport UK: 2206858/2020
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 07 February 2022 |
| Citation | 2206858/2020 |
| Date | 07 February 2022 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Published date | 22 February 2022 |
| Subject Matter | Public Interest Disclosure |
Case Number: 2206858/2020
- 1 -
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant Respondent
Mr S. Salmon
v
Confederation of Passenger Transport
UK
Heard at: London Central On: 15, 18, 19, 20, 21
and 22 October 2021
(+ 16 & 17 November
2021 in chambers)
Before: Employment Judge B Beyzade
Mr P de Chaumont-Rambert
Mr D Shaw
Representation
For the Claimant: Mr A Robson, Counsel
For the Respondent: Mrs H Winstone, Counsel
JUDGMENT OF THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL
1. The unanimous judgment of the tribunal is that:
1.1. The claim of unfair dismissal is dismissed as the Tribunal does not have
jurisdiction to hear the claim because the Claimant was employed by the
respondent for less than two continuous years ending with the effective date
of termination, contrary to the service requirement at section 108 Employment
Rights Act 1996;
1.2. The claimant’s claims of direct and indirect age discrimination are not-well
founded and are dismissed;
Case Number: 2206858/2020
- 2 -
1.3. the claimant’s claim for unfair dismissal for the sole or principal reason that
the claimant made protected disclosures pursuant to section 103A of the
Employment Rights Act 1996 is not well-founded and is dismissed;
1.4. the claimant’s claim pursuant to section 105(6A) of the Employment Rights
Act 1996 that he was selected for dismissal for the sole or principal reason
that the claimant made protected disclosures is not well-founded and is
dismissed.
REASONS
Introduction
2. The Claimant presented a complaint of unfair dismissal, dismissal pursuant to s
103A and s 105(6A) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (“ERA 1996”), and direct
and indirect age discrimination, which the respondent denied.
3. A final hearing was held between 15 and 22 October 2021. This was a hearing held
by CVP video hearing pursuant to Rule 46. The Tribunal were satisfied that the
parties were content to proceed with a CVP hearing, that it was just and equitable in
all the circumstances, and that the participants in hearing were able to see and hear
the proceedings. In addition the Tribunal met in chambers (in private) on 16 and 17
November 2021 (deliberations and judgment).
4. The parties prepared and filed a Joint Index and Bundle of Documents consisting of
1088 pages.
5. On the morning of the hearing the claimant’s representative made an application
(intimated first by letter dated 14 October 2021) to amend the claimant’s claim to
add further protected disclosures, and also for specific disclosure. The Tribunal
refused the amendment application. The Tribunal considered the authorities referred
to by the parties including Selkent Bus Co Ltd v Moore [1996] IRLR 661; the
Presidential Guidance: and the Tribunal’s overriding objective. The Tribunal
provided oral reasons for its decision at the hearing. Reasons for this having been
Case Number: 2206858/2020
- 3 -
given orally at the hearing, written reasons will not be provided unless a request was
made by either party at the hearing, or a written request is presented by either party
within 14 days of the sending of this written record of the decision. Following
consideration of the claimant’s applications, the Tribunal ordered the following:
i) The email dated 12.07.2019 in its unredacted form and the minutes of the
meeting that took place on 11.07.2019 shall be supplied by the respondent’s
representative in electronic form to the Tribunal by not later than 09.30am on
Monday 18.10.2021. Both documents shall be paginated and added to the
Hearing Bundle Index which shall be supplied at the same time.
ii) The respondent shall conduct a reasonable search for any other minutes of the
Finance and Governance Committee between 29 June 2019 and 10 July 2020 in
which the claimant is referred to by name or by description and shall supply a copy
of any minutes to the claimant and to the Tribunal in electronic form by 04.00pm
on Monday 18.10.2021.
iii) The respondent shall supply a statement confirming that it has complied with its
disclosure obligations pursuant to the Tribunal’s orders made at the Preliminary
Hearing on 12th March 2021 which shall be dated and signed by the respondent’s
Chief Executive and sent to the Tribunal and to the claimant’s representative in
electronic form by 4.00pm on Monday 18.10.2021.
6. At the outset of the hearing the parties were advised that the Tribunal would
investigate and record the following issues as falling to be determined, both parties
being in agreement with these:
Direct discrimination: s.13 EA 2010 (GoC para 24A)
(i) Was the Claimant subject to direct age discrimination contrary to s.13 Equality Act
2010 in that between late 2018 and the Claimant’s dismissal in June 2020, the
Respondent treated the Claimant less favourably than it would have treated a person
in a younger age group (under 53 years) than the Claimant’s age group (53 years
and over) [C’s age group not agreed by R] (with no other material difference in
circumstance) by a course of conduct designed to diminish the Claimant’s role within
and ultimately exit the Claimant from the Respondent? In particular by:
a. In late 2018, proposing that the Claimant’s role be made redundant (as averred
at paragraphs 6 and 7 AmGoC);
b. In January 2019, giving the Claimant notice of the redundancy of his Director of
Policy Development role (as averred in paragraph 11 AmGoC);
c. In January 2019 to 28 June 2019 (the date of signature of the contract) offering
the Claimant a role on a fixed term part-time basis resulting in substantially lower
To continue reading
Request your trial