Case 4100185/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R McCormack v Represented by: Himself Handmade Stairs Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 4100185/2020
- Decision date
- 23 July 2020
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge D Hoey
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R McCormack
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant worked as a stair joiner for more than two years. The tribunal found that when the respondent purchased the website and machinery of Handmade Stairs (Scotland) Limited, the claimant's employment transferred without interruption, so his service was continuous. He was summarily dismissed on 5 November 2019 without warning or procedure and had only been paid one week's pay in lieu of notice.
On notice pay, the tribunal held that he had 2 complete years' service and was entitled to 2 weeks' statutory notice under section 86 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Because he had already received only one week's pay, the respondent had to pay a further gross week's notice pay of £440.
On unfair dismissal, the tribunal found that no fair reason had been shown and no fair procedure had been followed. It accepted that the respondent referred to workload, workmanship and cash flow, but said there was no basis for dismissing the claimant on 5 November 2019 rather than taking some lesser step. It awarded a basic award of £880 and a compensatory award of £12,458.64, made up of 32 weeks' net pay (£11,568.64), £300 for loss of statutory rights and £880 under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 for the absence of a written statement of particulars, less £290 earned in mitigation. The Employment Protection (Recoupment of Jobseeker's Allowance and Income Support) Regulations 1996 applied, with a prescribed element of £11,568.64 for the period 19 November 2019 to 15 July 2020 and a balance of £1,770.
On the pension deduction point, the tribunal found that deductions had been authorised for pension purposes but were not remitted to the pension provider. It held that the deduction was not unlawful because it had been authorised, and said the claimant's remedy lay with the statutory regulator. Any remaining claims were dismissed as ill founded.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant had 2 years' service and was entitled to 2 weeks' statutory notice, but had only been paid one week in lieu. It awarded one additional week's gross pay at £440. | Upheld | — | £440 |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the dismissal on 5 November 2019 was unfair because no fair reason was shown and no procedure or warning was used. The award comprised a basic award of £880 and a compensatory award of £12,458.64, with recoupment regulations applying; the prescribed element was £11,568.64 and the prescribed period ran from 19 November 2019 to 15 July 2020. | Upheld | — | £13,339 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the pension deduction had been authorised, even though some sums shown on the wage slips had not been remitted to the pension provider. It held there was no unlawful deduction and said the claimant's remedy lay with the statutory regulator. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £13,779
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £880
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £12,459
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
11 references- section 86 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 218(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 119 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 123(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 38 Employment Act 2002
- Employment Protection (Recoupment of Jobseeker's Allowance and Income Support) Regulations 1996
- Transfer of Undertaking (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006
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.