Case 4100397/2020 · Employment Tribunal
ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4100397/2020 Hearing by CVP at Edinburgh on September 2020 Employment Judge: M A Macleod Tribunal Member: L Grime Tribunal Member: C Buon Mr Terry Ryan v Gambrinus Scotland Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 4100397/2020
- Decision date
- 1 October 2020
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Murdo Macleod
- Panel members
- L Grime, C Buon
Parties
2 namedClaimant
ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4100397/2020 Hearing by CVP at Edinburgh on September 2020 Employment Judge: M A Macleod Tribunal Member: L Grime Tribunal Member: C Buon Mr Terry Ryan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Terry Ryan was employed as store manager at Top Cellar, a store run by Gambrinus Scotland Limited. On 2 December 2019 Ms Aslam told him he was being let go for misconduct after concerns about the condition of the shop, stock control, and an October incident involving alcohol on the premises. The tribunal found there was no written dismissal letter, no advance warning that the meeting would be disciplinary, no opportunity to be accompanied, and no appeal process followed; the claimant later received £139 in cash on 9 December 2019 and his appeal was ignored.
The tribunal accepted that Ms Aslam had a genuine concern and some basis for believing misconduct had occurred, including the state of the shop, poor stock records, and the alcohol incident. It nevertheless held that the dismissal was unfair because the respondent failed to follow a fair procedure. The tribunal also found that the claimant’s own conduct was culpable and blameworthy and had contributed significantly to his dismissal, including failures to keep the shop tidy, restock shelves, maintain stock records, and prevent alcohol being shared on the premises.
For remedy, the tribunal calculated a basic award of £765 and a compensatory award of £2,290, then reduced both by 75% for contributory conduct. That produced a basic award of £191.25 and a compensatory award of £572.50, making £763.75 for unfair dismissal. Separately, the tribunal awarded £510 for two weeks’ notice pay and £1,275 for 25 days’ accrued but untaken annual leave, giving a total sum payable of £2,548.75.
The alleged failure to provide a written statement of reasons for dismissal failed. The tribunal found no evidence that Mr Ryan had requested such a statement and was not satisfied that the claim had been properly presented in the ET1. It therefore made no award on that issue.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the dismissal unfair because there was a complete failure to follow a fair procedure, including no advance warning, no companion, no written reasons and no appeal process. The claimant’s compensation was reduced by 75% for contributory conduct, leaving a final unfair dismissal award of £763.75. | Upheld | — | £764 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal accepted that the claimant was due two weeks’ notice pay and found that the respondent had not shown that any notice pay had been paid. | Upheld | — | £510 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal awarded payment for 25 days’ accrued but untaken annual leave, calculated at £51 per day. | Upheld | — | £1,275 |
| Other | The alleged failure to provide a written statement of reasons for dismissal failed because there was no evidence that the claimant requested one and the tribunal was not persuaded the claim had been properly presented in the ET1. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,549
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £191
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £573
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.119(2) ERA 1996
- s.122(2) ERA 1996
- s.123 ERA 1996
- s.92 ERA 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.