Mr C Lloyd v Ezec Medical Transport Services Ltd: 1302536/2022 and 1302563/2022
JUDGMENT
[1]The Claimant’s claims for breach of contract succeed.[2]The Claimant’s claims for detriment because of making protected disclosures are not well founded and are dismissed.[3]The Claimant’s claim for automatic unfair dismissal for making protected disclosures is not well founded and is dismissed.[4]The Claimant’s claim of ordinary unfair dismissal is well founded and succeeds. Case Numbers: 1302536/2022 and 1302563/2022REASONS
[1]The Claimant attended the hearing as a litigant in person.[2]We were presented with a bundle of documents in three binders totaling 930 pages.[3]We heard evidence from three witnesses for the Respondent, namely Ms. F Downes, Mrs. A Finney and Mr. W Spedding, who were the investigation manager, dismissal manager and appeal manager.[4]We also heard evidence from the Claimant.[5]The hearing ran relatively smoothly. At one point the Claimant applied to strike out the case which was refused. Reasons were given at the hearing that will not be repeated here.[6]On occasion, the Claimant became upset. We organised for the clerk to sit with him when he was upset because for most of the hearing the Claimant was alone. This was with consent from the Respondent.[7]We heard submissions on day 5 but there was insufficient time for us to complete our deliberations and come to a safe judgment by 15.00 on the final day of the hearing so the decision was reserved.[8]An additional document was requested form the Respondent, which was adduced into evidence, namely the email chain of 4 February 2020 containing a measures letter about the TUPE transfer relevant to his case and an email chain of 29 March 2021 containing an email the Claimant said was offensive as part of the factual matrix to his claim.[9]Other than this there were no other major issues in the case at hearing.Background
[10]The Claimant was employed by the Respondent as a Non-Emergency Patient Transport Driver. Case Numbers: 1302536/2022 and 1302563/2022