Cases3300711/2023

Claimant v The Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company

6 November 2025Before Employment Judge HyamsWatfordhybrid

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Unfair Dismissalfailed

The tribunal found that the claimants were not dismissed unfairly within the meaning of section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The dismissals were substantively and procedurally fair.

Automatic Unfair Dismissalfailed

The tribunal determined that the reason or principal reason for the claimants' dismissals was not that they had taken part in protected industrial action within the meaning of section 238A(2) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.

Wrongful Dismissalfailed

The tribunal found that the claimants' dismissals were not wrongful, meaning the respondent did not breach the employment contract by the manner of dismissal. Their breach of contract claims therefore failed.

Otherwithdrawn

The claimants' claims of unfair dismissal under section 104F of ERA 1996 relating to blacklisting were withdrawn by the claimants during the hearing on 16 October 2025.

Detrimentwithdrawn

The claimants' claims of detrimental treatment under regulation 9 of the Employment Relations Act 1999 (Blacklists) Regulations 2010 were withdrawn by the claimants during the hearing on 16 October 2025.

Facts

Four claimants employed by The Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company were dismissed. They brought claims alleging unfair dismissal, automatic unfair dismissal related to protected industrial action under TULRCA 1992, wrongful dismissal, and claims relating to blacklisting. The hearing lasted nine days with both parties represented by King's Counsel.

Decision

The tribunal unanimously found against the claimants on all contested claims. The dismissals were found to be fair under section 98 ERA 1996, not related to protected industrial action, and not wrongful. The blacklisting-related claims were withdrawn during the hearing.

Practical note

Even where employees participate in industrial action, dismissal may still be fair if the employer can demonstrate a different principal reason for dismissal and follows fair procedures under the band of reasonable responses test.

Legal authorities cited

Statutes

ERA 1996 s.98Employment Relations Act 1999 (Blacklists) Regulations 2010, SI 2010/493, reg.9TULRCA 1992 s.238A(2)ERA 1996 s.104F

Case details

Case number
3300711/2023
Decision date
6 November 2025
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
9
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
transport
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Claimant representation

Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister