Another day, another case in the Cummins ecosystem proving that ethical behaviour isn’t mandatory if you can manipulate facts and timelines. Case No 2500871/2020, Roger Harsley vs Cummins Engines Limited, is a masterclass in how corporate procedure can be weaponised against the very employees it’s supposed to protect.
Harsley was a 57-year-old temp production operative at the Darlington plant. He earned £701 a week, including shift allowance. Two years of dedication, yet permanent status eluded him. And when the plant needed cuts, his temporary status became a death sentence.
The Redundancy “Process”
Cummins argued that redundancies were necessary due to a downturn starting late 2018. They rolled out a supposedly fair selection process: pools divided by shift and team, nine appraisal criteria, moderated scores, union consultation—the works.
On paper, it looked robust. In reality? A cruel farce. Harsley was absent from 14 November to 2 December 2019 due to ill health. The company’s presentations and consultations, which Morley later claimed had occurred in mid-late October or early November, never involved Harsley at all. He was sidelined, blindsided, and only became aware of redundancies through a brief visit to the plant.
Judge Pitt’s ruling was explicit: Harsley had no meaningful consultation. Not one meeting, not one discussion, not one chance to influence the process or defend himself. The tribunal did not see the absence as trivial—it was central to the unfair dismissal.
Steve Morley: The Man Who Bends Timelines
Enter Steve Morley. Operations Leader at the time. Now Plant Director. The man who told the tribunal that meetings had occurred when Harsley was present. The judge wasn’t buying it. The presentations happened during Harsley’s absence, and no evidence contradicted this.
This wasn’t a minor misstep. Morley’s timeline error meant Harsley’s rights vanished on paper. The “consultation” box was ticked without being opened. And now, Morley is rewarded for this feat, promoted to Plant Director. At Cummins, bending the truth under oath doesn’t hurt your career – it accelerates it.
Appraisals, Appeals, and Obfuscation
Harsley’s next challenge: the appraisal system. Sloppy, prepopulated, and riddled with duplicate wording. Harsley requested clarity on how scores were weighted and applied. He got a vague verbal explanation, a deflection from HR, and nothing formal. Even when he submitted an appeal, he remained in the dark about key scoring details, leaving him unable to mount an effective case.
The appeal didn’t fix anything. Judge Pitt noted that while Morley spoke to the team leaders and the moderator, Harsley was never informed of those discussions. His chance to challenge bias or errors evaporated.
The Tribunal’s Verdict
Judge Pitt concluded:
- Redundancy as a reason for dismissal was legitimate, but procedural fairness was utterly ignored in Harsley’s case.
- No consultation, no opportunity to explore alternative roles, no meaningful appeal.
- Even small chances of redeployment in administrative roles were ignored—an administrative team existed, but Harsley, a manual worker, was never considered.
Compensation was reduced under Polkey principles to reflect the small chance of alternative employment, but the ruling was clear: unfair dismissal.
Lessons from Darlington
This case isn’t just about one temp operative losing his job. It’s about a culture where procedure can be selectively applied, where HR policies exist to protect the company and not the employee, and where career progression rewards those who get the story right for the company, not for the truth.
Steve Morley’s promotion is a case in point: the man who misrepresented timelines to the tribunal is now Plant Director. If you’re wondering what kind of corporate behaviour Cummins rewards, look no further: accuracy, transparency, and fairness are optional. Influence, timing, and plausible deniability? That’s your fast track.
Lee Thompson – Founder, The Cummins Accountability Project