Case 2502575/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R McKay v Evolution Football Coaching Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2502575/2019
- Decision date
- 23 November 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Martin Members
- Venue
- North Shields Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R McKay
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr R McKay was employed by Evolution Football Coaching Limited from September 2017 and later took on broader football/business development responsibilities. In June 2019 Mr Smith invited him to a disciplinary hearing on allegations including failure to manage HMRC and supplier debts, inaccurate mileage and fuel claims, and removal of a file from the company laptop. The claimant repeatedly asked for documents and further detail, but no material was provided in advance and the hearing was not reconvened after further enquiries were made.
The tribunal accepted that the respondent dismissed the claimant for conduct and that conduct was a potentially fair reason under s.98(2) ERA 1996, but it held the dismissal unfair under s.98(4) because the investigation was not reasonable and the procedure was not fair. The same person effectively investigated and heard the case, the claimant was not given the documents on which the allegations depended, and the appeal did not cure the defects because he still did not have the key material. The tribunal accepted that the claimant had done mileage and business development work, but it found the invoices he produced were inaccurate in the way they identified trips. It assessed contributory conduct at 40%, found a 30% chance he would have been fairly dismissed in any event, and applied a 10% uplift for failure to follow the ACAS Code.
On remedy, the tribunal awarded a basic award of £945 and a compensatory award of £9,634.58 for unfair dismissal, making £10,579.58 on that claim. It also upheld the notice-pay claim, finding that the conduct relied on did not amount to gross misconduct and that dismissal without notice was not justified; the concluding award on that claim is £2,022.04, despite the opening summary stating £2,222.04. The unlawful deduction from wages claim also succeeded because the deduction of £1,467.50 from wages on 1 July 2019 was not authorised, as the tribunal found the underlying expenses were owed to the claimant.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal accepted that dismissal was for conduct, including alleged inaccurate expense claims and HMRC/supplier payment issues, but found the investigation and procedure unfair because the claimant was given no documents in advance, was not provided with the material relied on, and was not given a proper chance to answer the further matters relied on before dismissal. It reduced the award for 40% contributory conduct and a 30% Polkey chance, and applied a 10% ACAS uplift. The unfair dismissal award was made up of a basic award of £945 and a compensatory award of £9,634.58. | Upheld | — | £10,580 |
| Breach of contract | This was the notice-pay claim. The tribunal found the mileage-related conduct did not amount to gross misconduct and therefore did not justify dismissal without notice. The opening summary states £2,222.04, but paragraph 83 and the concluding award state £2,022.04; the latter figure is used here. | Upheld | — | £2,022 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the deduction made from wages on 1 July 2019 was not authorised because the expenses were owed to the claimant and were rightfully claimed by him. | Upheld | — | £1,468 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £14,069
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £945
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £9,635
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
17 references- s.98(1) ERA 1996
- s.98(2) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- British Home Stores Ltd v Burchell
- Gallop v Newport City Council
- Bresolia v Food Partners Ltd
- s.13 ERA 1996
- s.14 ERA 1996
- s.122(2) ERA 1996
- s.123(1) ERA 1996
- s.123(4) ERA 1996
- s.123(6) ERA 1996
- s.207A TULRCA 1992
- Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd
- Nelson v BBC (No 2)
- Hollier v Plysu Ltd
- Gardiner-Hill v Roland Burger Technics Ltd
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.