Claimant v Oversolve Ltd

Tribunal found the reason for dismissal was a substantial reason (breakdown of trust and confidence). The respondent followed a detailed and fair procedure using independent external personnel. The claimant's poor interpersonal skills, refusal to follow reasonable management instructions, jeopardizing customer relationships, and aggressive conduct in meetings justified dismissal. The claimant himself accepted on multiple occasions that the relationship had completely broken down. A reasonable employer would have reached the same conclusion.

The PCP (expectation to work from home using only mobile phone) was not established as the claimant was the only sales executive working from home. When provided with a laptop, the claimant preferred to use his phone and iPad and failed to use the laptop. The claimant suffered no substantial disadvantage as he was still able to do his job. His desire for access to the Clarity system was to monitor other sales executives' orders, not because of his disability. The lack of auxiliary aids did not put him at a substantial disadvantage in comparison to non-disabled persons.

Although the claimant did a protected act by submitting his grievance on 22 July 2022, the tribunal found no causal link between the grievance and the alleged detriments. Ms Wharton stopped helping because the claimant refused to provide necessary information, not because of the grievance. The claimant was disciplined and dismissed because of his failure to cooperate, failure to follow reasonable management instructions, and general poor conduct which began well before the grievance. There was no evidence the grievance was in the mind of the dismissing officer. Following Igen v Wong, there was no evidence from which the tribunal could find the grievance caused the dismissal or other detriments.

This claim was clearly out of time with no evidence it was not reasonably practicable to bring it within the time limit. Additionally, despite an Employment Judge order on 16 April 2024 requiring the claimant to provide details by 30 April 2024, the claimant failed to provide detailed calculations of sums owed or the total amount claimed. The claim was not in a form the respondent could properly answer.

The commission payments claim failed for the same reasons as the unlawful deduction claim: it was out of time and the claimant failed to comply with the tribunal order to provide precise details and calculations despite being ordered to do so by 30 April 2024.