Case 4100451/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miller v Represented by: Mr R Watson, Friend Lagan Operations and Maintenance Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 4100451/2019
- Decision date
- 4 June 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Sutherland George
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miller
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was employed as an Area Manager at the respondent's Scottish depot from 5 January 2015 until 24 October 2018. In June and July 2018 he was told that the Scottish operation was closing over the next 3 to 6 months and that he was to continue on existing work while the respondent wound down the business. On 28 June 2018 he incorporated Signsafe Ltd without telling the respondent, and later correspondence showed that he was considering a new traffic management business and possible work with Amey and other clients. After an anonymous whistleblower email, the respondent investigated and then suspended him on 3 October 2018.
The tribunal found that the reason for dismissal was the stated conduct: incorporation of Signsafe without immediate and full disclosure or prior written consent, commencing a traffic management business while still employed in a traffic management business, disclosing information to Amey about the Scottish closure, and using company time and resources in pursuit of his own business plans. That reason was capable of being fair, but the dismissal was unfair under section 98(4) ERA 1996. Applying the Burchell and range-of-reasonable-responses approach, the tribunal held that the dismissing officer did not properly appreciate the closure context and the 3 to 6 month timeframe, and that the supplementary investigation material was not shared with the claimant before the decision was made. The tribunal also found procedural shortcomings in the investigation and disciplinary process against the employer's own procedure and the ACAS Code.
On remedy, the tribunal awarded a basic award of £2,286 and found that, had the claimant not been dismissed for gross misconduct, he would have been dismissed for redundancy on 21 December 2018. It therefore awarded compensation for loss of earnings, pension and bonus, together with loss of statutory rights, and found no Polkey reduction. The claimant's compensatory award was reduced by 20% for contributory conduct, reflecting his premature incorporation of Signsafe, his intended traffic management trading, the information disclosed to Amey, and minimal personal work during working hours. The formal judgment order records a total award of £18,180.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Single unfair dismissal claim. The formal judgment order awarded £18,180 in total, made up of a £2,286 basic award and a £15,984 compensatory award. The reasons section later calculates compensatory loss before reductions at £19,867.73 and refers to a 20% reduction to £15,984.18, but the dispositive order records £15,984. | Upheld | — | £18,180 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £18,180
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £2,286
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £15,984
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
9 references- s.94 ERA 1996
- s.98(1) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- British Home Stores Ltd v Burchell
- Iceland Frozen Foods Ltd v Jones
- Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd
- ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures
- s.123 ERA 1996
- s.207A TULRCA 1992
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.