An apprentice car body repairer was unfairly dismissed after he complained to the council that the only toilet on the premises was blocked, a tribunal has ruled.
The Birmingham tribunal found that Car Perfection Carcare’s (CPC) director, Wayne Edge, dismissed Mr J Priest after the council visited the premises to investigate a complaint about a lack of working toilet facilities.
It ruled that Priest was right to approach local authorities after his complaints to Edge were not dealt with, and that his sacking – which happened during a “confrontational” encounter with Edge – must have been “distressing and upsetting” for him.
Background
The tribunal heard that Priest initially started employment with CPC as an apprentice car body repairer on 1 September 2016, while also attending college. The tribunal did not give any detail as to when he graduated.
Since January 2020, there had been “intermittent” issues with the toilets – which are located outside, and therefore “prone to freezing” and had to be unblocked.
In January 2021, Priest reported the toilet would not flush and had no water, but went on sick leave shortly after for three weeks with a shoulder issue.
The tribunal said it was “common ground” that he had a discussion with Edge about the toilet, and Edge said it would be fixed by the end of the week. On 15 February, Edge said a pipe had burst and he was awaiting a plumber to fix it. However, the tribunal said Priest was “dissatisfied” and informed the Health and Safety Executive and Wolverhampton City Council.
On 18 February, the council visited CPC’s premises to investigate the complaint and explained they had received notice about the toilet and there being no hand sanitiser available at work. The inspector spoke with Edge, who showed him the hand sanitiser and face masks, and also explained that the toilet was due to be fixed.
Edge then called Priest and a colleague into a meeting at around 12.30pm, when Priest would ordinarily take his lunch. The pair were told they should “switch off their phones” and Edge explained that a complaint had been made. Priest admitted he made the complaint and Edge asked him why, but the “issue of dispute” is what was then said at the meeting, the tribunal said.
Priest claimed that Edge was “aggressive” towards him, and, as he went to go on his lunch break, Edge told him “not to bother coming back as he was sacked”. Edge denied these claims and instead alleged that Priest said he would not be “spoken to like that” and walked out – this account was supported by the other colleague.
Edge told the tribunal he followed Priest and found him collecting his belongings, and that he told Edge he would be back after he had “spoken to a solicitor”, and began shouting that he would “see him in court for unfair dismissal”.
Priest contacted Acas the same afternoon, and Edge obtained free legal advice through an insurance policy. The advisers told Edge to send a letter to the claimant, which he did on 22 February, which claimed Priest had an unauthorised absence.
Priest replied saying he understood he had been dismissed and Edge did not reply. The tribunal also noted that Edge often spoke to Priest via text, but did not contact him after the argument on 18 February.
Judge’s comments
Employment judge Hindmarch said Priest was “right to complain” to his boss and then to the relevant authorities when the facilities were not in working order. Hindmarch said they have “no doubt” Edge was “surprised and upset” when the council visited.
They also said Edge asking for phones to be switched off during the meeting after the council visit was “unusual in the workplace” and likely put Priest “on edge”.
Hindmarch preferred Priest’s evidence and said he was an “impressive witness” who was “well prepared, articulate and kept to his version of events throughout proceedings”.
They also said the fact Priest contacted Acas the same afternoon was “telling”, and they believed Edge did raise his voice and was “confrontational”, and did tell Priest he was sacked because he reported the poor toilet facilities.
“[Priest] is a young man who had worked for them since leaving school and this must have been very distressing for him,” said Hindmarch. They found the dismissal was automatically unfair as Priest had “genuine health and safety concerns” and it was because he raised them with his employer and the local authority that he was dismissed.
Priest was awarded £32,738.17.
Employment lawyer reaction
Martin Williams, partner and head of employment at Mayo Wynne Baxter, said the outcome of the case was “not surprising” as the link between raising a health and safety matter and Priest’s dismissal was “well established”. “Once the employment judge was satisfied with that link there was only going to be one conclusion,” said Williams.
He added that in cases where documentation is “light”, it is important for parties and witnesses to “present themselves well and be clear with the story they have to tell”. As Priest was more compelling, it meant he had a “better chance” of convincing the judge.
CPC has been contacted for comment. Priest could not be reached.
