Case 2402531/2016 · Employment Tribunal
Members: Mrs L Crooks Mrs M McAllister Mr John Morgan-Thomas v Represented by: Dr A Morgan-Thomas Relative Andrew Porter Limited — 2017
- Case reference
- 2402531/2016
- Decision date
- 21 July 2017
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shona MacLean
- Venue
- Glasgow
- Panel members
- Mrs L Crooks, Mrs M McAllister
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Members: Mrs L Crooks Mrs M McAllister Mr John Morgan-Thomas
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the March 2016 letter was a notice of dismissal and that the claimant's employment ended by reason of redundancy on 22 May 2016. It accepted that a redundancy situation existed after the downturn in work in Scotland, but held that the later work arrangement offered from Chorley and surrounding routes was not suitable alternative employment for this claimant because it involved longer hours, more travel, uncertainty about the Rutherglen parking arrangement and future work in Scotland, and the claimant's domestic circumstances made refusal reasonable. The tribunal nevertheless held that the dismissal for redundancy was fair and reasonable in the circumstances and awarded a statutory redundancy payment of £8,622.
The discrimination by association complaint failed. The tribunal accepted that the claimant was a carer for his father-in-law and had children with disabilities, but found no evidence that he was treated less favourably because of those caring responsibilities. It found that the respondent's decision-making was driven by the redundancy situation and the later work offer, not by disability association, and noted that the notice periods were based on length of service.
On the pay issues, the tribunal held that the Statement of Particulars allowed lay-off without pay except for statutory entitlement, so there was no unauthorised deduction on that basis. It said there was insufficient evidence to decide the National Minimum Wage element of the arrears complaint. It awarded £780 for eight accrued but untaken days of holiday and £958 for failure to provide full and accurate written particulars of employment because the written terms had not been properly updated after the transfer and later changes. The total award was £10,360.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal treated the March 2016 letter as notice of dismissal and held that the dismissal for redundancy was fair and reasonable in the circumstances. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | Statutory redundancy payment awarded at 18 weeks' pay using the statutory maximum weekly pay of £479. | Upheld | — | £8,622 |
| Disability discrimination | The claim was pleaded as discrimination by association. The tribunal found no less favourable treatment because of the claimant's caring responsibilities. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held the Statement of Particulars allowed lay-off without pay apart from statutory entitlement, so there was no unauthorised deduction on that basis. It also said there was insufficient evidence to decide the National Minimum Wage element of the arrears complaint. | Other | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Eight days of accrued but untaken holiday were found to be due at termination; the tribunal rejected the respondent's April holiday-year argument. | Upheld | — | £780 |
| Other | Compensation was awarded for failure to provide full and accurate written particulars of employment, at two weeks' pay. | Upheld |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £10,360
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
5 references- section 136(1) ERA 1996
- suitable alternative employment
- objective suitability of alternative employment
- reasonableness of refusal
- National Minimum Wage Regulations 2015 regulations 6 and 7
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.