Case 2302862/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v P & G Scaffolding Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2302862/2020
- Decision date
- 1 July 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge K Andrews
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge K Andrews found that Mr N Mackenzie was unfairly constructively dismissed. The judgment records the outcome in summary form and does not set out written reasons, but the dispositive finding is that the claimant succeeded on his constructive unfair dismissal complaint.
The tribunal ordered compensation forthwith. It awarded a basic award of £4,020.00. The compensatory award was calculated from net loss of earnings of £990.60, pension loss of £709.20 and job-seeking expenses of £50.00, giving £1,749.80 before deduction.
A 25% ACAS reduction of £437.45 was applied, reducing that figure to £1,312.35. The tribunal then added £400.00 for loss of statutory rights, producing a compensatory award of £1,712.35 and a total monetary award of £5,732.35.
The recoupment section records a prescribed element of £990.60 for the period 17 June 2020 to 24 June 2021, and states that the monetary award exceeded the prescribed element by £4,741.75.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The judgment states that the claimant was unfairly constructively dismissed. The tribunal awarded a basic award and a compensatory award, with the total monetary award assessed at £5,732.35. | Upheld | — | £5,732 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,732
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £4,020
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £1,712
- compensatory remedy recorded
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.