Justify This 2006 - 2007 (Diabetes, Discrimination, Disability, Ableism, Disablism)

By Nostaple Limited

If a multinational employer fired you for having diabetes because you would be off sick a lot in the future, what would you do? This is a true story of discrimination in the workplace, one ordinary person against a multinational employer, multinational legal firm, barrister, appeal courts, countries and international courts, in the form of a diary including emails, correspondence, and judgments. A modern day David and Goliath with many twists along the way.

Open the book and discover topics such as:

•disability (diabetic, diabetes) discrimination, disablism and ableism.
•diabetes type 1 and diabetes type 2.
•dismiss diabetes type one or two.
•direct and indirect discrimination.
•stereotypical assumption.
•insulin, hyperglycemia, hypoglycemia, and hba1c.
•unfair dismissal.
•workplace layoff.
•firing, fired and redundancy.
•employment law.
•human right campaign.

Aimed at the following audiences:

•Anyone who suffers from diabetes.
•Anyone who suffers from a disability.
•Anyone who could suffer from any form of discrimination.
•Anyone who enjoys true stories.
•Anyone who enjoys true crime and inspecting evidence (on Nostaple website).

What would you have done in the same situation?

Additional topics/tags throughout this series include: diabetic, diabetes, disability, discrimination, disablism, ableism, employment, redundancy, layoff, fired, legal, law, unfair, workplace, dismiss, type, 1, 2, one, two, i, ii, firing, exploit, unfairness, corrupt, intolerance, outrage, unequal, above the law, justice, injustice, bigotry, hypoglycemia, hyperglycemia, law and order, discriminate, enterprise, work, business, corporation, civil, right, hba1c, claim, court, trial, crime, ketoacidosis, termination, grievance, sack, human, campaign.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Nostaple Limited
• Release date: May 30, 2017
• ISBN: 9781370796663

Nostaple Limited

Nostaple LimitedWe try to publish books that are different from the mainstream.

Book preview

Copyright © 2016 by Nostaple Limited

All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer: This is not a work of fiction. As such, the publisher has made every effort to ensure the accuracy of the information within this book was correct at time of publication. The publisher does not assume and hereby disclaims any liability to any party for any loss, damage, or disruption caused by errors or omissions, whether such errors or omissions result from accident, negligence, or any other cause. The publisher will be pleased to make good any omissions or rectify any mistakes brought to the publisher's attention at the earliest opportunity. Any views and opinions expressed herein are fully endorsed by the publisher. The publisher will, at the publisher's own expense, defend any claim based upon any lawsuit brought against any content contained within this book.

Licensing Note: No part of this book may be reproduced in any manner without the express written consent of the publisher, except in the case of brief excerpts in critical reviews or articles. All inquiries should be addressed to Nostaple Limited, website click here.

First Edition

Other books by Nostaple Limited:

The Justify This series:

Justify This 2006 - 2007

Justify This 2007 - 2008

Justify This 2008 - 2010

Justify This 2010 - 2011

Justify This 2011 - 2015

The Justify This series of books is a blow by blow account of one person's true story of alleged discrimination in the workplace, leading to legal cases against a multinational employer and international countries, through local courts, national courts, international courts, and the United Nations.

Table of Contents

Chapter 1

Chapter 2

Chapter 3

Chapter 4

Chapter 5

Chapter 6

Chapter 7

Chapter 8

Chapter 9

Chapter 10

Chapter 11

Chapter 12

Chapter 13

Chapter 14

Chapter 15

Chapter 1

Prejudice, not being founded on reason, cannot be removed by argument

Samuel Johnson, 1709-1784.

The story that is about to unfold is purely based on fact. It is a factual account of one person's struggle against a multinational software company, a multinational legal company and the legal system itself. It is the type of struggle which reveals who your real friends are, what families are for, and how alone life can be.

My name is Kenneth Robert McAlpine, and I was born on 12 August 1964 to a working class family in a village called Uddingston in Scotland. In the early years, up until I was aged five, we lived in the top flat of a three-storey tenement building, which had an outside toilet.

When I was aged eighteen months, I contracted mumps that caused my immune system to attack and shut down my pancreas, resulting in my pancreas not producing any insulin. This meant that I had contracted Type 1 diabetes, and had to take insulin via injections every day for the rest of my life.

Although I had type 1 diabetes, I lived a very normal childhood, only having to stop for five minutes every day to take insulin. In fact, if I was out running about a lot, playing, I would be burning up energy and sugar, and my blood sugar level would drop, so I would have to get some extra sweets to bring my blood sugar level back up to normal levels. What child didn’t enjoy getting some extra sweets?

My school years were also very normal, but I probably had more intelligence than I realised, but simply played myself out of contention for a University place, and barely made the grade for College.

When I was eighteen, I managed to get a place at College studying for a Higher National Diploma in Mechanical Engineering. This was a three-year course, and I played and studied myself through this course, and eventually graduated with a Higher National Diploma in Mechanical Engineering.

After graduating, I managed to obtain work placement in a large engineering company for a few months before applying for a place at University to study production engineering and management. This was a whole different league, and there was to be a lot less playing and an excessive amount of studying. At the end of my studies, I managed to obtain an honours degree in production engineering and management.

I then spent five years working for a company in heavy engineering, producing very large, very heavy components for a wide range of industries, including nuclear power stations.

During this time, I settled down and married. We set up home in Ayrshire, where my wife had lived all her years. At the end of our first year of marriage I was made redundant from heavy engineering, but managed to obtain employment in a small electronics company within six months, and worked there for two years before deciding to go back to University to study for a masters degree in business computing, which I obtained a year later.

I then obtained work, again in the electronics sector, but this time as a database administrator rather than an engineer. It was at this time that I was introduced to Oracle Corporation and their software. I spent the next few years becoming a better and more experienced Oracle database administrator, which ultimately resulted in vacancies becoming available in Oracle Corporation UK Limited, one of which I ultimately filled in 1998.

In order to set the scene of what transpires over the next few years, I have to describe my career in Oracle.

I started working for Oracle Corporation UK Limited on 12 August 1998, my birthday, aged thirty-four, not much of a birthday, away from home on induction training. I was a Consultant, working in Oracle Consulting, and was expected to know everything about Oracle, it’s software and any computer it was running on. In order to succeed as a Consultant, you had to talk as if you knew it all, but in reality, it was down to a team effort.

I spent many weeks away from home, working on contracts, mainly myself, and initially enjoyed working out of a suitcase, but when my wife got pregnant with our first child, I knew that my wife would find it difficult to cope herself.

Early in 1999, my manager phoned me and explained that there was a six-month secondment with Oracle Support to set up a small business to remotely support Oracle customers via the Internet. Both myself and another Oracle Consultant were to provide the online expertise to look after the customer’s database and software, and this business would be called ExpertOnline.

At the end of this secondment, I was given the choice to stay with ExpertOnline that was beginning to take off and gain more customers, or go back to Oracle Consulting. For me, there was no choice, ExpertOnline allowed me to mainly work from home and see my newborn daughter every day while Oracle Consulting would mean travel and long periods away from home.

By April 2002, ExpertOnline had grown from around five to around twenty employees in the United Kingdom, was also taking off in various continents around the world, and had changed its name to Oracle Outsourcing.

Over the next two years, I had the opportunity to work in two different areas of what had been renamed Oracle On Demand. The last job was as a Project Manager, but this started to involve much more travel to new customers anywhere in Europe, the Middle East and Africa. Many of the Project Managers who I knew had either no family or their family had grown up and flown the nest. My wife at this time was pregnant with our second child, so travel and long periods away from home were not on my list of preferences at all.

I always remember my team leader in Oracle Consulting during a performance review stating that you should expect to be promoted once every two years in Oracle, the basis of that statement being if you survived another two years in Oracle you would have another two years experience. By this time, I had worked for Oracle for six years but was still the same grade as when I started.

In the middle of 2004, I had various meetings and telephone calls with my manager regarding a move out of the Project Management group. To cut a long story short, my manager threatened me with redundancy unless I stayed on as a Project Manager, however at this time a vacancy for an On Demand Service Delivery Manager became available, and I applied and filled the vacancy. Funnily enough, a few Project Managers left the group around about this time as well, I wonder whether it was the travel or the management, but I will never know.

As an On Demand Service Delivery Manager I was thrown straight in at the deep end, working with another On Demand Service Delivery Manager, Julie McFarlane, on the largest contract in On Demand in the United Kingdom, and one of the largest in Europe, Middle East and Africa.

This contract was so busy, that Julie and myself recognised that we needed another On Demand Service Delivery Manager about ten weeks after I had started, so Richard Marsden was brought in to take some of the work away from Julie and mainly myself.

The next year and a half flew by, and in November 2005, Julie McFarlane contacted me and said she was leaving On Demand to work in another group within Oracle. Towards the end of November my manager, Philip Snowden during my performance review mentioned that I would be allocated to help on a newly signed large contract, General Electric.

Little did I know at the time, but the General Electric account would be two to three times as busy as the Environment Agency account, and I would be working on the General Electric account with just one other On Demand Service Delivery Manager, Fran Winters.

Over the next three weeks working on the Environment Agency and General Electric accounts simultaneously, the workload and work conflicts were causing stress, and I realised that the status quo could not continue, as my health was beginning to suffer, and the service to both the Environment Agency and General Electric accounts was also beginning to suffer. This came to a head in the middle of December, when I was expected to attend the Environment Agency monthly meeting on 21 December 2005, the same day that I was due to stop for the Christmas break. Because this was going to be the last day before a two-week break, I had to make sure that both the Environment Agency and General Electric accounts had no outstanding work that would cause problems over the two-week break. I stated to Julie McFarlane and Richard Marsden that I would be unable to make the Environment Agency monthly meeting on 21 December 2005 because I could not afford to devote a full day to travel and meetings with the Environment Agency because that was the last day before my Christmas break, and I would have to devote a large part of that day to General Electric work. I didn’t see this as a problem, as Julie McFarlane and Richard Marsden only worked on the Environment Agency account, and regularly attended the Environment Agency monthly meetings.

A conference call was hastily arranged on 16 December 2005 between me, Julie McFarlane, Richard Marsden and our manager Philip Snowden, who was due to go on his Christmas break that day. I learned that Julie McFarlane and Richard Marsden had reported me to Philip Snowden for not wanting to attend the Environment Agency monthly meeting. All three sit within a ten-metre radius of each other in the same office. An argumentative exchange took place, primarily it was three against one, and towards the end of the ten-minute call Philip Snowden said that I had to attend the Environment Agency monthly meeting. At the end of the call, I asked Philip Snowden to stay on the line, and had a private chat with him concerning my workload, work conflicts, stress and the impact that this was having on myself and informed Philip Snowden about my diabetes. I also informed Philip Snowden that the number of problems on a daily basis between both accounts, made it impossible to work the problems on both accounts simultaneously on a daily basis, and I gave him a simple choice, was I to work the Environment Agency problems or work the General Electric problems.

On 21 Dec 2005, I had an early start and travelled up to the Airport to fly down to the Environment Agency monthly meeting for a nine-thirty start. Before the meeting, Richard Marsden informed me that Nicholas Cooper, my Senior Director and Philip Snowden’s manager, wanted to see me after the Environment Agency monthly meeting.

After the Environment Agency monthly meeting and some lunch, I went to Reception and asked them to book me a taxi to come as soon as possible for the Airport, when I bumped into Nicholas Cooper, and we both went to Mr Cooper’s office. I informed Mr Cooper about the problems working on both accounts simultaneously, the impact that this was having on my diabetes and myself. Mr Cooper preceded to analyse my day in his eyes, and, as a result, convinced himself that there was not an excessive workload, there were no work conflicts, and, as a result, no stress. At this point I received a phone call from Reception to inform me that my taxi had arrived, so I informed Mr Cooper and the meeting quickly ended with me informing Mr Cooper that as the status quo had to continue, I had to leave the role of On Demand Service Delivery Manager and look for another role within Oracle after the Christmas break.

What really bothered me, and it had been touched upon at the meetings with both Nicholas Cooper and Philip Snowden, was the fact that there were around fourteen On Demand Service Delivery Managers, many of whom worked on small accounts that had around three to five hundred problems a year. The Environment Agency had around two and a half thousand problems a year, and the General Electric account was heading for around six thousand problems a year. Even although there was more than one On Demand Service Delivery Manager working with both the Environment Agency and the General Electric accounts, the workload was not evenly split between all On Demand Service Delivery Managers in the whole team, and in my case, it was simply unworkable.

The start of the New Year, 2006, did not bring any relief from the work conflicts, as I was still expected to collate and write the Environment Agency monthly report whilst working on the General Electric account, and I was not getting much time, if any, to look for another role within Oracle, to get me out of this vicious circle. This continued for the next few months.

On 25 May 2006, I received a short phone call from Philip Snowden, informing me that I had to travel through to the Edinburgh office and speak with a William Gemmell, I had never met a William Gemmell before, and Philip Snowden did not give any further details.

I travelled through to the Edinburgh office on 30 May 2006, and after a short wait, William Gemmell introduced himself, and we proceeded to his office. Mr Gemmell introduced himself as the most Senior Director in the Edinburgh office and informed me that I had been provisionally selected for redundancy, handing me a letter dated 30 May 2006 informing me I had been provisionally selected for redundancy.

At the meeting with William Gemmell, I asked a few questions regarding why I had been provisionally selected for redundancy, but Mr Gemmell stated that he could not answer any questions as he was not my manager or director, and was not involved in my line of business. He informed me that I should contact a Catherine Temple in Human Resources. So I returned home and contacted Catherine Temple who informed me the next day that she was going to post my leaver's checklist and compromise agreement out to me that day, and outlined the procedure on how to return my phone and laptop computer.

I continued working as normal for the next ten days, and then felt that I was coming down with something, so arranged to see one of my local doctors on 13 June 2006. At the appointment with the doctor, the doctor noted that I felt shivery and unwell, and had vomited. The doctor also noted that I looked unwell, and took my temperature, which was 102.2oF, well beyond the minimum temperature that is regarded as a severe fever. I also had a blood sugar level of seventeen, the normal blood sugar level is around six and a half. The doctor informed me that she was calling an ambulance, as I was to be admitted straight to Accident and Emergency.

I spent the next four days in the hospital, receiving many pints of fluid intravenously as well as antibiotics. After being discharged I went back to work and learned that my redundancy had been moved from 27 June to 10 July 2006. I returned my equipment on 2 July 2006, as I was in the area of the nearest office, and was officially notified that I was redundant on 10 July 2006.

I spent the next month or so updating my CV and registering with job sites on the internet, as well as signing on for the government's jobseeker's allowance benefit.

It was now mid-August, and my parents were urging me to raise a case against Oracle for unfair dismissal and discrimination. I knew that if I did raise a case against Oracle, then my career would be over, and the career that I had worked for over the past ten years would disappear almost overnight. Whether you are working for Oracle or one of their customers, you cannot escape having to contact, and work with Oracle. It is a very Oracle-centric career.

However, I knew just how unfair my redundancy had been, and because of this, I strongly suspected discrimination based on my diabetes.

There was, however, one massive problem, I had no proof, and I also knew that Oracle, with its limitless resources, would hire the best lawyers to defend any case.

On 25 August 2006, I decided to raise a Tribunal case of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination. The ET1 Form is the main Employment Tribunal form that starts the whole case off. Without one of these forms, the Employment Tribunal does not have a case to process.

The ET1 form is split into thirteen sections, and the first section requests the usual information such as title, first name, surname, date of birth, address, phone number and email address of the claimant. The second section requests information for the respondent such as employer's name, and employer’s address and phone number.

3.1 Are you, or were you, an employee of the Respondent?, to which I answered Yes.

3.3 Is your claim, or part of it, about a dismissal by the respondent?, to which I answered Yes.

3.5 Have you put your complaint(s) in writing to the respondent?, to which I answered Yes and stated that I had done so on 2 June 2006.

3.6 Did you allow at least 28 days between the date you put your complaint in writing to the respondent and the date you sent us this claim?, to which I answered Yes.

In section 4 I answered questions on when my employment with the respondent started and ended, and whether my employment was continuing, to which I answered No. The form then asked the following question Please say what job you do or did, to which I answered Service Delivery Manager. This section then ended by asking questions on the number of hours worked, and pay before and after tax.

Section 5 dealt with unfair dismissal or constructive dismissal and stated that if you think your dismissal was unfair, or you feel that you had been constructively dismissed, then you should explain what happened. In the blank space provided, I typed the following:

Failure to follow dismissal and redundancy procedures. No consultation with myself what so ever. Telephone call to advise me to attend a meeting with a Manager (not my Manager) on 30th May 2006, no reason given. At that meeting, given a provisionally selected for redundancy letter dated 30th May 2006. Dismissal from a team of people performing very similar work, I was the 7th longest serving team member, in a team of around 14 people, the latest recruit to the team started on 1st June 2006.

This section then requested information on any further benefits that you received from your employer, and whether or not you have since gained other employment since your dismissal. it ended by requesting whether you wanted to be re-employed by your old employer, or just wanted compensation, and I indicated that I just wanted compensation.

Discrimination was dealt with in Section 6:

6.1 Please tick the box or boxes to indicate what discrimination you are complaining about, to which I ticked Disability

6.2 Please describe the incidents which you believe amounted to discrimination, the dates of these incidents and the people involved

"Phonecall with Phil Snowden 16th December 2005, raised my concerns over my workload, stress levels and diabetes.

Meeting on 21st December 2005 with Nick Cooper, again, raised my concerns over my workload, stress levels and diabetes.

The approximate value of normal contracts for our team was normally less that £0.5m, most team members worked on two or three of these contracts simultaneously. I was working on two contracts simultaneously with a value of approximately £15m and £20m, although there was one additional team member assigned to work on each contract, but whatever way you split the contract value, I had the largest value.

No reduction in workload until I was selected for redundancy on 30th May 2006.

Loss of diabetic control over subsequent months.

After 30th May 2006, handover of some work (email from Phil Snowden on 5th June 2006) to Mark Jones, who was recruited to the team on 1st June 2006 (email from Phil Snowden 20th April 2006).

During June, I was admitted to Accident and Emergency Department of local hospital for 4 days, with a temperature in excess of 100F. My GP had diagnosed that I had keytones due to my diabetes, and because I was so run down, I had contracted a viral infection and a fever.

After my selection for redundancy period had expired, I was made redundant on 28th June 2006."

The rest of the form mainly dealt with other information that was not required in my case, and I also did not complete the section regarding representative, as I did not have anyone representing my interests at that time.

That same day, 25 August 2006, I received an email from the Glasgow Employment Tribunal Service.

Thank you. Your claim form has been received at 05:24 on Friday, August 25, 2006 and has been forwarded to the relevant tribunal office.

Please make a note of your receipt number: 50539

Receipt of your claim will be confirmed by the tribunal office dealing with your case. If you do not receive an acknowledgement of your submitted claim within one working day, please telephone the relevant office.

You should print off a copy of your claim form for your records.

Ref. No.: 50539

The law on disability discrimination, the Disability Discrimination Act, allows employees who feel that they have been discriminated against, to question their employer on the alleged discrimination. On 21 September 2006, I sent the Disability Discrimination Act questionnaire to the managing director of Oracle Corporation UK Limited, the respondent. The important parts of the questionnaire were as follows:

"What happens if the respondent does not reply or replies evasively

7. The respondent cannot be compelled to reply to the complainant's questions. However, if the respondent deliberately, and without reasonable excuse, does not reply within eight weeks, or replies in an evasive or ambiguous way, his or her position may be adversely affected should the complainant bring proceedings. The respondent's attention is drawn to these possible consequences in the note at the end of the questionnaire."

2. {Give details including a factual description of the treatment received, the effect of the treatment received (if the complaint relates to harassment), or the failure complained of. Describe any relevant circumstances leading up to this and include any relevant dates or approximate dates (see paragraph 11 of this guidance).}

Phonecall with Phil Snowden 16th December 2005, raised my concerns over my workload, stress levels and diabetes.

Meeting on 21st December 2005 with Nick Cooper, again, raised my concerns over my workload, stress levels and diabetes.

The approximate value of normal contracts for our team was normally less than £0.5m, most of the team members worked on a maximum of two or three of these contracts simultaneously. I was working on two contracts simultaneously with a combined value of approximately £35.0m.

No reduction in workload until I was selected for redundancy on 30th May 2006.

3. I consider this treatment or failure on your part may have been unlawful.

4. Do you agree that the statement in paragraph 2 above is an accurate description of what happened? If not, in what respect do you disagree or what is your version of what happened?

{This is the first of your questions to the respondent. You are advised not to alter it.}

5. Do you accept that your treatment of me or any failure complained of was unlawful? If not, why not?

{This is the second of your questions to the respondent. You are advised not to alter it.}

6. {Any other questions you wish to ask (see paragraph 17 of the guidance).}

6.1 Full details of why there were redundancies?

6.2 Full details of why you were made redundant?

6.3 What pool of people was considered for redundancy and why?

6.4 What reasons were used to decide who was made redundant?

6.5 Full details of notes and scoring sheets for each worker considered?

6.6 Full details of all people who joined the oSDM Team after Kenneth McAlpine, including dates?

Notes

(1) Under 56(3) of the Act (as amended by the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (amendment) Regulations 2003), this questionnaire and any reply are admissible in evidence in employment tribunal proceedings brought under Part 2 of the Act or - in cases concerning employment services - under Part 3.

(2) Section 56(3)(b) allows a tribunal to draw any inference it considers is just and equitable from:

a failure, without reasonable excuse, to reply to the questions within eight weeks, or

an evasive or equivocal reply.

The Respondents Managing Director received the questionnaire on 22 September 2006.

Chapter 2

The Tribunal Office received a faxed response to my ET1 form on 25 September 2006.

The ET3 Form is the main response form to the Employment Tribunal from the respondent. It is the respondent's defence against the allegations made by the claimant in the ET1 form.

The ET3 form is split into seven sections, and the first section requests the usual information from the respondent such as the name of organisation, address, phone number and email address of the respondent.

Section 2 is entitled Action before a claim, and requests that the respondent completes the following questions:

2.1 Is, or was, the claimant an employee? If 'Yes', please now go straight to section 2.3., to which the respondent answered Yes.

2.3 If the claim, or part of it, is about dismissal, do you agree that the claimant was dismissed? If 'Yes', please now go straight to section 2.6., to which the respondent answered Yes.

2.4 If the claim includes something other than dismissal, does it relate to an action you took on grounds of the claimant's conduct or capability?, to which the respondent answered No.

2.5 Has the substance of this claim been raised by the claimant in writing under a grievance procedure?, to which the respondent answered No.

"2.6 If 'Yes', please explain below what stage you have reached in the dismissal and disciplinary procedure or grievance procedure (whichever is applicable).

2.6

Contrary to the Claimant's assertion, he has neither raised the matters of which he now complains as a grievance, an appeal or at all with the Respondent.

Apart from confirming the return of company property to the Respondent by email on 27 July 2006, the last verbal contact which the Respondent had from the Claimant prior to his redundancy was on 5 June 2006 with his manager, Mr P Snowden when the Claimant said that he was ok with the redundancy situation.

Contrary to the Claimant's assertion in his Tribunal Claim, the Claimant's communication of 2 June 2006 does not complain at his selection as being at risk of redundancy or otherwise raise any of the matters of which he now complains.

In the circumstances, it is the Respondent's belief that the Claimant's claim is inadmissible and/or that he is otherwise in breach of the statutory disputes resolution procedures.

In section 3, entitled Employment details, the respondent answered the following questions:

3.1 Are the dates of employment given by the claimant correct?, to which the respondent answered No.

3.2 If 'No', please give dates and say why you disagree with the dates given by the claimant., to which the respondent answered against employment ended 10 July 2006. The respondent also answered, Is their employment continuing? with No.

3.2

The Claimant's employment was terminated with effect from 10 July 2006. The Claimant was paid normal salary and benefits until the termination date.

3.3 Is the claimant's description of their job or job title correct? If 'Yes', please now go straight to section 3.5,, to which the respondent answered Yes.

3.5 Is the information given by the claimant correct about being paid for, or working, a period of notice? If 'Yes', please now go straight to section 3.7., to which the respondent answered Yes.

The remaining parts of this section dealt with hours worked and earnings, and the Respondent agreed that the details given by the claimant were correct.

Section 4 dealt with unfair dismissal or constructive dismissal, and asked the respondent whether they agreed with the claimant's pension and benefits figures, to which the respondent stated Yes.

The respondent's main response was dealt with in Section 5:

5.1 Do you resist the claim?, to which the respondent ticked Yes.

5.2 If 'Yes', please set out in full the grounds on which you resist the claim.

5.2

Termination of the Claimant's employment by the Respondent was solely on grounds of redundancy. The Respondent will say that it carried out a fair selection and fair consultation including search for alternative employment for the Claimant.

It is denied that the Claimant was unfairly dismissed on the grounds set out in the Claimant's Tribunal Claim or at