In Robson v Clarke’s Mechanical Ltd, David Robson is a qualified gas, heating and plumbing engineer. He is also a qualified pipe fitter and gas-safe registered. He has worked in the field since 1965. He describes himself as dual qualified, in that he was qualified both as a plumber and a gas fitter.
Clarke’s is a company that provides services including plumbing, heating and ventilation with design, installation, maintenance, service and repairs to commercial, industrial and domestic customers. The sole director is Mr Clarke.
In 2020, the company had failed to secure expected contracts worth some £650,000, due to competition from mainland companies. Mr Robson was invited by Mr Clarke to a meeting where he was told he was to be made redundant. There had been no warning to Mr Robson before this meeting that he was at risk of redundancy, and no consultation with him.
He was the first worker of three to be dismissed and was awarded £6,300 in redundancy pay. Mr Robson appealed the decision, asking his company to explain the selection process and questioning whether his age had been a factor. The scoring system supposedly used to select redundancy candidates was later sent to Mr Robson, which he complained had been ‘fabricated’.
He received a score of 28, which was low given his experience and expertise. His score for ‘Performance’ was the lowest other than that of a junior trainee.
The tribunal also heard Mr Robson was nicknamed ‘Half-dead Dave’ on site, and that the name was also used by his supervisors and bosses who insisted there was ‘no malice’ in his using the nickname and told the tribunal ‘it was just banter’.
But Mr Robson told the tribunal: ‘It was saddening. To me, the most saddening thing was that the term originated from a member of the management.’
The tribunal accepted that calling someone “half-dead” was an age-related epithet and was derogatory.
The tribunal also accepted that there was a genuine redundancy but found that the process adopted by the company “failed every test of fairness”. Although there was no direct evidence that Mr Robson had been selected because of his age, the company hadn’t been able to explain its decision. But the context pointed in the direction of discrimination: Mr Robson was skilled and versatile and there were no performance or conduct issues. It therefore inferred that he had been dismissed because of his age.
Mr Robson was awarded £10,000 for unfair dismissal, £6,000 for the injury to his feelings following his selection for redundancy and a further £7,000 for the name calling.
This provides summary information and comment on the subject areas covered. Where employment tribunal and appellate court cases are reported, the information does not set out all of the facts, the legal arguments presented and the judgments made in every aspect of the case. Employment law is subject to constant change either by statute or by interpretation by the courts. While every care has been taken in compiling this information, we cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions. Specialist legal advice must be taken on any legal issues that may arise before embarking upon any formal course of action.
