Mr K MacDonald v First Corporate Shipping Ltd T/a The Bristol Port Company: 1403388/2024
JUDGMENT
[1]The claim for unfair dismissal does not succeed and is dismissed.[2]The claims of harassment related to disability and race were not presented within the applicable time limit. It is not just and equitable to extend the time limit. These claims are therefore dismissed. Approved by:REASONS
There is no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked, for the following reasons.[1]The Claimant applies on the basis that reconsideration may be necessary as he wishes to check that certain points were considered by me when making my decision. I deal with these points in turn.[2]Point 1 – photos taken of the Claimant and other members of staff on display in the supervisor’s room. The Claimant disputes having agreed that these were not part of the issues to be determined, and says this is relevant to him being disciplined for the same conduct. This was not one of the issues in the case, in the sense of being a separate claim that was made by the Claimant. However, I did hear evidence on this issue during the hearing and took it into account. It did not change the outcome of the hearing as the Claimant was not dismissed simply for taking photographs of colleagues – he was accused of harassment and did not provide any response at his disciplinary hearing.[3]Point 2 – the lack of evidence that the Claimant took a photograph on 3 August 2024. This point was covered in evidence during the hearing and I took it into account, but I nevertheless found the dismissal was fair. Case number: 1403388/2024[4]Point 3 – the Respondent’s representative giving the impression in closing submissions that the Claimant was taking photographs on an almost daily basis. I did not make this finding or use it as the basis for my decision.[5]Point 4 – a question about the authorship of a particular email, although the Claimant accepts that Mrs Rosling forwarded it and so did read it. There was no suggestion during the hearing that this email was fabricated and this was not relevant to my decision.[6]Point 5 – the failure to provide the Claimant with evidence, including witness statements, was quite a major procedural error. I did find that this was a procedural error. However, due to the unusual circumstances of the case, where the Claimant did not provide any response at the disciplinary hearing and said he did not want to receive any of the documents, I found that this did not make the dismissal unfair.[7]The Claimant also makes the point that he does not believe or accept that he has behaved in a malicious manner towards others, including colleagues, or that he harassed them. I made no finding on this point as it was not necessary in order to decide whether the dismissal was fair.