Case 2404678/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Cole William Gibson v Harrison Groundworks Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 2404678/2019
- Decision date
- 17 September 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hoey Appearances
- Venue
- Carlisle Magistrates Court
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Cole William Gibson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Cole William Gibson worked for Harrison Groundworks Limited from 1 September 2015 until he was dismissed by text message on 17 December 2018. The tribunal found that no performance issues had been raised during his employment, that there was no misconduct by the claimant, and that no procedure was followed before dismissal. It held that there was no potentially fair reason for dismissal and that the dismissal was unfair within section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and section 98(4) of the same Act.
On remedy for unfair dismissal, the tribunal awarded a basic award of £410.06 and a compensatory award of £14,215.76. It found that the claimant had taken reasonable steps to find alternative work, that his losses would continue for at least another 12 months, and that it was just and equitable to award the equivalent of 52 weeks' gross pay. The tribunal also recorded a prescribed element of £7,654.64 for the period 4 February 2019 to 19 August 2019, with an excess of £6,561.12, and noted that the recoupment regime for Jobseeker's Allowance applied.
Separately, the tribunal awarded 4 weeks' pay, £1,093.52, for the respondent's failure to issue a written statement of particulars or written contract. It also found that the claimant had been entitled to 3 weeks' notice pay, valued at £820.14 gross, but made no separate award because that period was already covered by the unfair dismissal compensatory award.
The tribunal further found an unlawful deduction from wages of £390 gross arising from two underpayments, and it awarded £693.56 for 102.75 hours of accrued holiday pay. The claimant withdrew the claim relating to a mobile phone penalty and the claim for itemised payslips, both of which were dismissed upon withdrawal, and the claim for return of property was withdrawn after the tribunal stated that it had no jurisdiction to determine it.
Claims and outcomes
8 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed by text message on 17 December 2018 without any procedure; the tribunal found no potentially fair reason, no misconduct, and no contribution by the claimant. The basic award of £410.06 was recorded separately. | Upheld | — | £14,216 |
| Other | Failure to issue a written statement of particulars / written contract. The tribunal awarded 4 weeks' pay under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002. | Upheld | — | £1,094 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was entitled to 3 weeks' notice pay (£820.14 gross), but made no separate award because that loss was covered within the unfair dismissal compensatory award. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Two wage underpayments were found: 7 December 2018 and 21 December 2018. The gross shortfall was £390 and the net shortfall was £330.92. | Upheld | — | £390 |
| Holiday pay | Accrued holiday pay for 102.75 hours at £6.75 per hour. | Upheld | — | £694 |
| Breach of contract |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £16,803
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £410
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £14,216
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
10 references- s.98 ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- s.119 ERA 1996
- s.123 ERA 1996
- s.13 ERA 1996
- s.38 Employment Act 2002
- s.86 ERA 1996
- Working Time Regulations 1998
- ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance matters
- Employment Protection (Recoupment of Jobseeker's Allowance and Income Support) Regulations 1996
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.