Case 4100590/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Member: N Elliot Tribunal Member: W Muir Colin Hosie v Tayside Health Board — 2021
- Case reference
- 4100590/2021
- Decision date
- 13 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Bradley
- Panel members
- N Elliot, W Muir
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Member: N Elliot Tribunal Member: W Muir Colin Hosie
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningColin Hosie worked for Tayside Health Board as a waste yard operative on a fixed-term contract that began on 18 May 2020 and was ultimately extended by four weeks to 15 December 2020. The claim originally included a holiday pay issue, but that was resolved by agreement and was not determined. The live issues for decision were detriment for non-payment of salary on 23 and 24 October 2020 and unfair dismissal arising from the non-renewal of the fixed-term contract.
On 23 October 2020 the claimant's wife was tested at Ninewells after an outbreak in ward 2, and the claimant believed the Scottish Government advice required him to stay at home while waiting for the result. The tribunal found there were circumstances of danger, that he reasonably believed them to be serious and imminent, and that belief remained reasonable despite changing advice from management during the day. It held that the respondent treated his absence on 23 October as unauthorised and unpaid because he refused to return to work while that danger persisted, so the section 44(1)(d) claim succeeded. The tribunal awarded £71.34, being one day's pay from the agreed two-day deduction of £142.68. The corresponding 24 October detriment claim was dismissed because the claimant accepted in evidence that he should not be paid for that day.
The unfair dismissal claim failed. The tribunal accepted that the respondent had not followed its fixed-term contract policy and that the handling of the claimant's contract was confused, but it found no evidence that the principal reason for the eventual non-renewal was that he refused to return to work on 23 October. It preferred the contemporaneous record of the claimant's meeting with management over the later challenge to it, and held that the burden of proving section 100(1)(d) was not discharged. Having made the section 44 award, the tribunal said it was unnecessary to decide the separate section 13 unlawful deduction issue.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Detriment claim under section 44(1)(d) ERA 1996 for non-payment of salary on 23 October 2020. The tribunal found there were circumstances of danger, that the claimant reasonably believed them to be serious and imminent, and that the respondent treated the absence as unauthorised and unpaid because he refused to return to work while that danger persisted. | Upheld | — | £71 |
| Other | Detriment claim under section 44 of the ERA 1996 for non-payment of salary on 24 October 2020. The tribunal dismissed it because the claimant accepted in evidence that he should not be paid for that day. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Claim based on non-renewal of the claimant's fixed-term contract. The tribunal accepted that the respondent had not followed its fixed-term contract policy, but found no evidence that the principal reason for the eventual non-renewal was the claimant's refusal to return to work on 23 October 2020. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £71
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £71
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
8 references- s.44(1)(d) ERA 1996
- s.49 ERA 1996
- s.100(1)(d) ERA 1996
- s.95(1)(b) ERA 1996
- Ross v Eddie Stobart Ltd UKEAT/0068/13/RN
- Balfour Kilpatrick Ltd v Acheson & ors
- Oudahar v Esporta Group Ltd UKEAT/0566/10/DA
- Harvest Press Ltd v McCaffrey EAT/488/99
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.