Case 2503350/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Craggs v BMS Electrical Services Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 2503350/2018
- Decision date
- 15 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Martin Members
- Venue
- North Shields Hearing Centre
- Panel members
- Mr R Dobson, Mr S Moules
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Craggs
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, an electrician employed from 1 June 2013, suffered a heart attack on 31 October 2017 and remained off work on sick leave with a heart condition and later depression. On the holiday pay issue, the tribunal rejected a separate claim for four additional days but held that his non-guaranteed overtime formed part of normal remuneration under Bear Scotland and awarded holiday pay for 17.25 hours per week over the four-week statutory leave period, producing £1,114.40 gross.
The constructive unfair dismissal claim failed. Applying the Weston Excavating, Omilaju and Kaur authorities, the tribunal held that the post-absence contact issues, the 15 May welfare meeting and the handling of the grievance did not amount to a fundamental breach of contract. It found that the claimant had affirmed the contract by agreeing to wait for the occupational health report, and that the respondent's invitation to a grievance meeting on 9 July 2018 came within a reasonable time after the report, so his resignation that day did not amount to a dismissal under s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996.
The disability discrimination claim under s.15 Equality Act 2010 succeeded. The tribunal found both the heart condition and depression were disabilities, that the respondent knew or ought reasonably to have known, and that the relevant unfavourable treatment arose from disability-related sickness absence. It upheld complaints about the lack of contact during a six-month absence, the failure to provide requested policies and meeting documents, and the failure to deal with the grievance in a reasonable time. A separate remedies hearing of half a day was directed.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | Partly upheld: the tribunal rejected the separate 4-day additional leave claim, but held that non-guaranteed overtime counted for the four-week statutory holiday calculation and awarded 17.25 overtime hours per week x 4 weeks at £15.92, gross. | Upheld | — | £1,114 |
| Constructive dismissal | Constructive unfair dismissal under s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996. The tribunal found no fundamental breach, held that earlier complaints had been affirmed while awaiting the occupational health report, and found the 9 July resignation premature. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Upheld under s.15 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal found the claimant's heart condition and depression were disabilities, that the respondent knew or ought reasonably to have known, and directed a separate remedies hearing; no compensation was fixed in this judgment. | Upheld | Disability | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,114
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
21 references- Regulation 13 Working Time Regulations 1998
- Regulation 13A Working Time Regulations 1998
- Regulation 14(2) Working Time Regulations 1998
- Bear Scotland Limited v Fulton and Others
- Section 95(1)(c) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Weston Excavating Limited v Sharp
- Omilaju v Waltham Forest London Borough Council
- Kaur v Leeds Teaching Hospitals
- GAB ROBINS (UK) Limited v Triggs
- Morrow v Safeway Stores Plc
- Bliss v South East Thames Regional Health Authority
- Wadham Stringer Commercials (London) Limited v Brown
- Leeds Dental Team Limited v Rose
- Section 6 Equality Act 2010
- Section 15 Equality Act 2010
- Pnaiser v NHS England
- Williams v Trustees of Swansea University Pension and Assurance Scheme
- Rayner v Turning Point
- Shamoon v Chief Constable of Royal Ulster Constabulary
- Swift v Chief Constable of Wiltshire Constabulary
- Morgan v Staffordshire University
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 4 PDF on gov.uk
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.