Case 4100657/2017 · Employment Tribunal
(sitting alone)10 Mr Anthony Carson v Council — 2018
- Case reference
- 4100657/2017
- Decision date
- 16 February 2018
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge I McFatridge
- Venue
- Edinburgh
Parties
2 namedClaimant
(sitting alone)10 Mr Anthony Carson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAnthony Carson, Scottish Borders Council's Regulatory Services Manager, was summarily dismissed on 13 December 2016 after an investigation into alleged bullying behaviour within Regulatory Services. The tribunal accepted that the stated reason for dismissal was conduct under section 98(2)(b) ERA 1996, but held that fairness had to be assessed under section 98(4) and the Burchell approach. It also referred to the range of reasonable responses and Sainsbury's Supermarkets v Hitt when assessing the investigation.
The tribunal found that Mr Carson was not given proper particulars of the case against him. The allegations were framed as broad themes, but the investigation did not identify specific incidents, dates, or context in a way that allowed a meaningful response. Ms Young's investigation was criticised as not being a real investigation: she relied on voluntary witness responses, did not test credibility or resolve conflicts, did not interview all relevant staff, and did not properly distinguish between legitimate management action and bullying. The report also mixed in material that related to Sally Reynolds, and the tribunal considered that the Council had not followed its own dignity, harassment, grievance, and disciplinary procedures in the way its policies envisaged.
At the disciplinary stage, Mr Robertson upheld some allegations and rejected others, including the mileage allegation, which he accepted could amount to reasonable management supervision. However, the tribunal held that he also made findings on matters not charged, including inappropriate comments in meetings, and that his reasoning was fundamentally flawed because he treated witnesses' statements that they felt bullied as enough, without identifying or investigating the specific conduct relied on. The appeal was treated as a review rather than a rehearing and was not upheld. The tribunal found the dismissal unfair, rejected any deduction for contributory fault, and awarded a basic award of £4,645.50 and a compensatory award of £51,935.59, producing a total award of £56,581.09 with no prescribed element.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Single unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal awarded a total monetary sum of £56,581.09, with reasons breaking this into a basic award of £4,645.50 and a compensatory award of £51,935.59 after application of the statutory cap. | Upheld | — | £56,581 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £56,581
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £4,646
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £51,936
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
7 references- s.98 ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- British Home Stores Ltd v Burchell
- Sainsbury's Supermarkets v Hitt
- ACAS Code paragraph 9
- Drossou v University of Sunderland
- range of reasonable responses
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.