Analysis of Employment Tribunal Case: 7BSP1376 HRM Module Report

This report provides an analysis of an observed employment tribunal case, focusing on the legal proceedings and key issues presented. The report begins with an introduction to Employment Tribunals in the UK, outlining their jurisdiction and administrative structure. It then details the author's experience of visiting the tribunal, including observations of case management before the hearing, where the language barrier of the claimant was discussed. The report examines the initiation of the hearing, the lack of documentation, and the issues raised by the claimant, including the non-translation of documents and the circumstances surrounding the claimant's dismissal. It delves into the facts and findings of the case, including the claimant's work history, the issue of asbestosis, the grievance process, and the witness statements. The report also explores the arguments presented by both the claimant and the respondent, including the respondent's justifications for dismissal based on the claimant's conduct and the legal precedents cited. Finally, the report analyzes the case in light of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and relevant case law, offering insights into the likely decision of the tribunal and the factors influencing the outcome. The report concludes with recommendations supported by academic sources and case law.

Running head: EMPLOYMENT LAW
EMPLOYMENT LAW
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1EMPLOYMENT LAW
Introduction
Employment Tribunals are considered to be the public bodies in the nations of England
and Wales and the nation of Scotland. These tribunals have the statutory jurisdiction in relation
to the hearing of the disputes regarding the employees and the employers. Generally, the disputes
involve issues related to discrimination among the employees regarding their employment,
payments related to redundancy and unfair dismissal. The tribunals are considered to be a part of
the structure regarding the UK tribunals. The administration of these tribunals is done by the
‘Tribunals Service’. The supervision and the regulation of the aforementioned tribunals is done
by the Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council. The Employment Tribunals generally
entertain claims, which have been brought before the tribunals, within the time period of three
months regarding the issues that are particularly in relation to statutory violations.
Discussion
Importance of Court (or Tribunal) Visit
Court visits (in this case tribunal visit) are considered to be very valuable and
advantageous for the growth and progress of any particular student. It augments the character
and provides a strong and vibrant perspective or outlook in relation to any particular case or
problem. The primary purpose for such visits is to comprehend the functioning in relation to the
court or tribunal and the nature of responsibilities regarding the parties involved in any particular
case (Hollins and Sinason 2018).
Case Management before Hearing
On the 11th day of the month of the October in the year of 2019, I visited the Employment
Tribunal. After I visited the tribunal, before the hearing began, a discussion in relation to the case

2EMPLOYMENT LAW
management took place in the tribunal (Lord, Percy and Rowlands 2018). When I was present in
the Tribunal, an information came to my knowledge, that is, the first language of the candidate is
not the English language. The candidate previously attended the Tribunal. He was not prepared
at the time. However, on this day the candidate is attending the Tribunal with significant
questions. The Employment Rights Act of the year 1996 is involved in the case that is being
heard in the Tribunal. Sub section (1) of section 98 as provided in the Employment Rights Act of
the year 1996, states that it shall be the responsibility of the employer to demonstrate appropriate
reasons for dismissing any particular employee. Sub section (4) of the aforementioned section
states that whether such dismissal is unfair or fair, shall be decided by the tribunal in relation to
the facts and circumstances of each case, keeping in mind the resources of the undertaking of the
employer and rationality of the decision of the employer regarding the dismissal.
Initiation of the Hearing
After the case management concluded, the hearing started. I learnt that no documents
were produced before the hearing started. Even the copies in relation to the documents were not
given. Only an Indemnity Statement form was forwarded. The form that I just mentioned
contained only the rudimentary details such as the name of the candidate, the age of the
candidate and the previous address of the candidate. Other information that was included in the
aforementioned form was in relation to the previous accidents that the candidate was involved in,
the shop or establishment from where the purchase of the car was made, the last mileage report
regarding the car and such type of basic data. The form provided by the candidate does not have
any connection to the present situation or status of the candidate. No more questions were asked.
I should mention that the document was not converted or translated to the language of the
candidate in order to help the candidate. In the Tribunal, two issues were raised by the claimant.

3EMPLOYMENT LAW
One of the issues, which was raised by the claimant is in relation to the fact that the language
was not translated for the candidate. I was in the Tribunal and it was stated that the document or
the manifestation did not clarify regarding the fact that who was the individual who visited and
met with the claimant at the place of the work. The juror refused any further questions. In the
tribunal it was also stated that permission must be asked by the claimant in order to perform
cross examination (Urwin 2018).
In the Employment Tribunal it was mentioned by the claimant that they were making an
attempt to provoke and aggravate the candidate. I should mention that in the Tribunal, as per
belief of the respondents, the claimant was working for any other person or individual, on the
19th day of the month of February. However, the claimant contradicted and denied the fact that he
was working for any other person or individual, when the Tribunal asked questions and issues. In
relation to the allegation that was made regarding the claimant, the claimant stated that he did not
have any money. The money stated by the claimant is in relation to ‘Statutory Sick Pay’ (SSP). It
must be mentioned that in order to be eligible for sick pay, the employee or the worker must be
unable to work for a period of four days or more than four days. However, if any employee or
worker receives SSP while continuing with his or her work, then such receipt shall be considered
to be illegal (Creedy and Disney 2016).
It was stated in the Tribunal that on the 12th day in the month of the August in the year of
2015, the claimant was in an accident, a road accident to be specific. After the accident, the
claimant was not in his previous condition. On the 6th day of the month of November in the year
of 2017, a meeting was held. In that meeting, the interpreter for the claimant was present. In this
particular meeting, a request was made to the claimant regarding the signing of a particular form
known as the witness form. The claimant delivered a statement or a declaration with the

4EMPLOYMENT LAW
assistance of the interpreter. It was demanded that the claimant must let go of the company car,
because somebody else needs to utilize the car.
Facts and Findings
It was stated that as per the facts and findings, the claimant started to work for the
respondent and was hard working and diligent. The respondent expected to have a longstanding
employment regarding the claimant. The respondent was unaware regarding the issue relating to
asbestosis because the claimant did not clearly mentioned such facts. Claimant stated that he was
stressed about the whole situation and he does not remember anything. As per the respondent,
the claimant felt pressured to do the work in the toilet.
The claimant provided evidence, however, no notes were allowed to provide evidence.
The claimant swore oath in Polish. He provided a witness statement and confirms that the
contents of the statement are true. In relation to the grievance raised in the year of 2017, he was
not dismissed in 2017 and there is no proof of such dismissal. He was only dismissed orally.
Further it was mentioned that Richard was an expert in asbestos. It was inspected by the claimant
and Richard that the asbestos was needed to be painted on both sides.
Before the incident of 15th December in the year of 2017 the claimant denied wanting to
terminate contract and reserved the right to constructive dismissal, although he had no
knowledge regarding constructive dismissal. As per the incidents of 13th and 15th December
regarding the beard of claimant, he felt he was ridiculed after working for a span of ten years for
the company. Afterwards, Richard was stunned to hear allegations against him. However, it must
be mentioned that the claimant undertook activities that was similar to work.

5EMPLOYMENT LAW
Grievance document and Grievance Meeting
A grievance document or manifestation was conveyed in relation to the claimant with the
assistance of a solicitor. It has been stated by the claimant that discrimination had been
committed against him.
An invitation was forwarded to the claimant regarding a grievance meeting on the 4th day
of the month of December in the year of 2017. I came to know that the claimant was not present
as he was on sick leave. The claimant never stopped complaining regarding the witness
statement. Such occurrences were on the 12th day of the month of December in the year of 2017.
On the 15th day of the month of the December, the said meeting was held. In this particular
meeting, it was not made clear by the claimant that the claimant was unable to work because the
asbestosis was not cleared appropriately. As per the claimant, this could not be considered as a
meeting. The claimant stated that it can be considered as a conversation that was held for five
minutes in the road. The claimant also mentioned that he left early because he was not well. The
claimant visited the doctor after he left the conversation.
Witness Statement Unclear
It has not been clarified by the claimant in the witness declaration or statement that the
asbestosis was intruding his work. Certain points were made by the claimant regarding such
ailment and somebody else did a grammar check in relation to the points forwarded. The
claimant confirmed that he was aware of the fact that the whole evidence was needed to be
mentioned in the witness declaration or statement. However, the claimant failed to mention the
whole evidence. Such failure of the claimant could may have resulted because of the language
barrier.

6EMPLOYMENT LAW
The statement that was forwarded by the claimant states that the claimant went back to
his home. However, the claimant refuses such statement and repeatedly states that he went for
checkup to a doctor. It must be mentioned that the conversation began in office and the
conversation continued on the road. The health of the claimant was not good, for which, he did
not request for any more work.
Issues regarding Asbestos
It must be said that no complaints were made by the claimant regarding the fact that the
asbestos was intruding the work of the claimant. On the 15th day of the month of December in the
year of 2018, the claimant requested for a copy regarding the report, which was presented by
Richard. The report was in relation to asbestos. I should mention that the claimant was asked to
shave his beard. The date of the report in relation to asbestosis was 12th day of the month of
December in the year of 2017. On the 18th day of the month of December in the year of 2017, the
claimant was signed off in relation to anxiety and stress. Richard requested the claimant to show
up at an informal meeting in order to settle the differences between them and also in order to
settle the differences regarding the report in relation to asbestosis.
Direction by the Tribunal
The Tribunal asked the respondent as well as the claimant to provide a brief declaration
or statement as to what may be the factors that makes the claimant or the respondent right or
correct as per their own perception in relation to the case.
Advancements by Respondent
It was forwarded by the respondent that the decision in relation to the dismissal of the
claimant was based on the conduct of the claimant. The spontaneous fair dismissal was regarding

7EMPLOYMENT LAW
the issues in relation to the disease of asbestosis. The claimant was dismissed due to his
consequent conduct. The claimant behaved in such a manner and the claim escalated because of
it. The respondents also forwarded that the claimant was working and the evidence provided by
the claimant was not credible. The respondents highlighted that there was no language barrier.
The respondents referred to the case of Tayeh v Barchester Healthcare Limited [2013] EWCA
Civ 29. In this case the claimant claimed that she was unfairly dismissed. Even though the
Employment Tribunal held that the dismissal of the nurse was unfair, the Employment Appellate
Tribunal allowed the appeal of the respondent and stated that the dismissal was fair (Morrison
2019).
Advancements by Claimant
The claimant forwarded that no safety or health was present at the workplace regarding
the disease of asbestosis. Claimant stated that sick leave was not respected. No meeting was held
after the sick leave. The claimant mentioned that he left his van because he did not want to drive
to the doctor. He mentioned that he visited the doctor and did not go to his home. The claimant
added that respondent discriminated against him because of his nationality and laughed at him
because of his English. The claimant referred to the case of Frenkel Topping Limited v King
UKEAT/0106/15/LA. In this case the employment tribunal held that the claimant may claim on
the grounds of constructive unfair dismissal. The Employment Appellate Tribunal rejected the
appeal that was forwarded by the respondent (Morrison 2019).
Decision by Tribunal
After the hearing it was concluded by the Tribunal, based on the circumstances of the
case and the statements, references and proof forwarded by respondent as well as claimant, that

8EMPLOYMENT LAW
the respondent had reasonable and rational grounds to dismiss the claimant. It was held by the
juror that the claimant was not successful (Rose and Busby 2017).
Conclusion and Recommendation
To conclude it may be said that after the ending of the hearing in the Employment
Tribunal, according to my idea regarding the proceeding of the case, I should state that the
decision forwarded by the Tribunal is appropriate and justified in the case discussed above. After
listening to the whole proceeding, it was well understood by me that the proof, evidences and
other references of the respondent overpowered the evidences and declarations that were
provided by the claimant. The evidences and declarations that were provided by the claimant
were ambiguous and confusing, which were not accepted by the Tribunal. On the other hand, the
evidences forwarded by the respondent were concrete and clear. Hence, the decision forwarded
by the Employment Tribunal was reasonable and justified.

9EMPLOYMENT LAW
References
Creedy, J. and Disney, R., 2016. Recent UK Policy. The Political Economy of Social
Security, 179, p.211.
Employment Rights Act, 1996.
Frenkel Topping Limited v King UKEAT/0106/15/LA.
Hollins, S. and Sinason, V., 2018. Going to court. Books Beyond Words.
Lord, J.D., Percy, D.F. and Rowlands, K., 2018, September. The location and type of
employment tribunal claim can determine the chances of success: a unique investigation into the
history and current workings of the employment tribunal system. In Proceedings, British
Academy of Management Conference 2018. British Academy of Management.
Morrison, K., 2019. HR Theory and Employment Law. In Management for Scientists (pp. 129-
145). Emerald Publishing Limited.
Rose, E. and Busby, N., 2017. Power relations in employment disputes. Journal of Law and
Society, 44(4), pp.674-701.
Tayeh v Barchester Healthcare Limited [2013] EWCA Civ 29.
Urwin, P., 2018. Technical Education in England: Investigating Seven Key Assumptions.