Mrs V N M Roque v OCS Group UK Ltd: 2409214/2023
JUDGMENT
The complaint of unfair dismissal is unsuccessful and is dismissed.REASONS
There is no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked, because:[1]In accordance with the overriding objective, Employment Judge Ainscough ensured the parties were on an equal footing. The claimant was not at a disadvantage because she had a lay representative. Employment Judge Ainscough assisted the lay representative with the formulation of questions during cross examination and ensured the claim was put to the respondent’s witnesses. Employment Judge Ainscough also explained the procedure to the claimant’s lay representative.[2]The imbalance of witnesses between the parties did not mean that the matter was not dealt with justly and fairly. It was necessary for the respondent to call 3 witnesses to provide evidence about the respondent’s procedures and decision making process.[3]It was not necessary for either party to call the claimant’s colleague who witnessed the accident at work that led to the claimant’s absence. The issues before the Tribunal were whether there was a fair reason for dismissal and whether it was fair in all the circumstances.[4]At the outset of the hearing, Employment Judge Ainscough was concerned that the claimant’s lay representative was in attendance but the claimant Case No: 2409214/2023 was not in attendance. Employment Judge Ainscough spoke to the claimant who confirmed that she was capable of attending via cloud video platform and the hearing was converted to a hybrid hearing.[5]Employment Judge Ainscough also ascertained that english was not the claimant’s first language and postponed the start of the hearing until an interpreter was in remote attendance to assist the claimant. The claimant did not make any submissions about being too unwell to remotely attendthe hearing.
[6]On the third day of the hearing Employment Judge Ainscough deliberated in the morning and gave judgment shortly after 2pm. The claimant did not remotely attend the third day of the hearing due to her ill health but her lay representative informed the Tribunal that he would make a note of the judgment and update the claimant.[7]The claimant’s lay representative chose to attend the second day of the hearing remotely. The claimant’s lay representative attended the third day of the hearing. The claimant’s lay representative did not make any submissions about being unable to effectively represent the claimant during his remote attendance. Approved by: