Case 3314803/2019 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 3314803/2019 Held via Cloud Video Platform (CVP) on 10, and November 2020 Employment Judge J D Young Mr G Ramsey v Novograf Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 3314803/2019
- Decision date
- 27 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 3314803/2019 Held via Cloud Video Platform (CVP) on 10, and November 2020 Employment Judge J D Young Mr G Ramsey
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Ramsey had worked for Novograf Ltd since 2006 as an Installation Team Leader. The case arose from workmanship complaints at Travelodge Kings Cross and Co-op Farnborough, where the respondent said rooms and installations completed by his team were substandard and had to be redone at an estimated cost of about £5,000. The tribunal found that the respondent investigated those complaints, sent the claimant the disciplinary material on 6 December 2018, and lawfully moved the matter from an investigation to a disciplinary hearing when the Farnborough issues emerged.
Applying s.98 ERA 1996 and the Burchell approach, the tribunal accepted that the respondent genuinely believed the claimant had been guilty of misconduct and had reasonable grounds for that belief after a reasonable investigation. It also accepted that the claimant was the team leader and that his responsibilities included completion reporting, self-snagging and overall performance of the installation crew. The tribunal rejected the claimant's argument that the dismissal was really about redundancy and found no evidence that redundancy was the real reason for dismissal. The unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed, and the related notice pay claim failed because the tribunal found gross misconduct and held that the contract and s.86(6) ERA 1996 permitted summary dismissal without notice.
The tribunal upheld the unlawful deduction from wages claim in respect of two deductions from the final payslip, for alleged private use of the company credit card and a motoring fine, because no evidence was produced to justify those deductions. It awarded £107.58. It also upheld the holiday pay claim, finding that the claimant's holiday entitlement for the year was 35 days, that he had been paid for 10 days, and that 15 days remained outstanding; it awarded £1,975.80 gross for accrued untaken holiday. The judgment did not make any award for unfair dismissal, and the total monetary award ordered was £2,083.38.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal accepted that the respondent dismissed Mr Ramsey for conduct, not redundancy, and found the dismissal fair under s.98 ERA 1996 after applying the Burchell approach and the range of reasonable responses test. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | The tribunal rejected the submission that conduct was a pretext to avoid redundancy payment and found no link between redundancy and the dismissal. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The notice pay claim failed because the tribunal found gross misconduct and held that summary dismissal without notice was permitted under the contract and s.86(6) ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found no evidence to support the deductions for alleged private use of the company credit card and a motoring fine, and ordered repayment of the deducted sum. | Upheld | — | £108 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the claimant was entitled to 35 days' holiday in the year, had been paid for 10 days, and was owed 15 days accrued untaken holiday pay at the gross figure awarded. | Upheld | — | £1,976 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,083
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
7 references- s.98 ERA 1996
- British Home Stores Ltd v Burchell
- range of reasonable responses
- Iceland Frozen Foods Ltd v Jones
- s.86(6) ERA 1996
- W Devis and Sons Ltd v Atkins
- J Sainsbury's Plc v Hitt
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.