A SOLICITOR had his claim for unfair dismissal from a well-known Merseyside law firm thrown out.
John Tuson brought the claim against Kirwans Solicitors, with whom he worked as head of commercial property until he was made redundant in September 2010.
During the two-day employment tribunal hearing, Mr Tuson claimed he was forced out because of a “vendetta” against him by the firm’s managing partner, David Kirwan.
At one point, Mr Tuson had to take extended sick leave because of stress and anxiety brought on by Mr Kirwan’s “bullying and harassment,” which included “aggressive and sometimes vicious” emails.
On his return to work in January 2010, Mr Tuson said he was put on a three-day week – against his wishes – and had his pay cut. He struggled to cope with the workload on his reduced hours and later that year was told he was being made redundant because the commercial property department was being wound down.
In his closing statement to the tribunal, Mr Tuson – who represented himself at the hearing – said Mr Kirwan had gone on a “fishing exercise” to find a reason for his dismissal.
Mr Tuson said he was singled out for redundancy because he was a “thorn in the side” of Mr Kirwan and refused to be intimidated by him, unlike other senior figures at the law firm.
But an employment tribunal yesterday found that the dispute played no part in the decision to make Mr Tuson redundant.
Instead, it was a business decision taken because commercial property was no longer generating enough profits because of the economic downturn and there was insufficient work to retain Mr Tuson.
In her summing up, Bernadette Worthington – representing Kirwans – said: “After a lengthy period of support the firm reached a decision not to continue with a stand-alone commercial property department and head of department.
“Mr Tuson knew full well this was not motivated by various differences of opinion with Mr Kirwan. It was motivated by the recession and economic downturn.
“He can point to nothing more than his allegation that David Kirwan was behind it as the evidence doesn’t back it up.”
