Case 4100753/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Ecigarus Wishaw Ltd and The Old School Guest House Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 4100753/2020
- Decision date
- 1 December 2020
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Wiseman
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that both claimants were employed by Ecigarus Wishaw Ltd, not The Old School Guesthouse Ltd. Although from November 2018 they received an additional monthly payment through the guesthouse payroll and carried out guesthouse duties, the tribunal held that this did not create a separate employment relationship with the guesthouse. The claims against The Old School Guesthouse Ltd were dismissed.
On termination, the tribunal rejected the respondent's case that the claimants had resigned. Applying section 95 ERA 1996 and an objective assessment of the 8 November 2019 meeting, it held that Mr Bowman's refusal to continue with additional guesthouse duties did not amount to a resignation, and that Mrs Bowman's employment ended because her role was linked to his. The tribunal found that Mr Koiak's statement that their employment was terminated amounted to dismissal.
Because the respondent proceeded on the basis of resignation and did not establish a reason for dismissal under section 98 ERA 1996, both unfair dismissal claims succeeded. Mr Bowman received a basic award of £670 and lost wages of £249, totalling £919. Mrs Bowman received a basic award of £2,150 and lost wages of £698, totalling £2,848.
On the money claims, Mr Bowman was awarded £498 notice pay and £359.31 unpaid wages. Mrs Bowman was awarded £1,745 notice pay; her wages claim was dismissed because the parties agreed no balance remained due after deductions; and she was awarded £1,552.67 for the retained bonus sum, but not the fourth-quarter bonus she had claimed.
Claims and outcomes
7 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Mr Bowman was found to have been dismissed on 8 November 2019. The unfair dismissal award comprised a basic award of £670 and lost wages of £249. | Upheld | — | £919 |
| Unfair dismissal | Mrs Bowman was found to have been dismissed on 8 November 2019. The unfair dismissal award comprised a basic award of £2,150 and lost wages of £698. | Upheld | — | £2,848 |
| Breach of contract | Mr Bowman was awarded notice pay. The tribunal rejected the respondent's suggestion that the early-November discussions were effectively a notice period. | Upheld | — | £498 |
| Breach of contract | Mrs Bowman was awarded notice pay. The tribunal rejected the respondent's suggestion that the early-November discussions were effectively a notice period. | Upheld | — | £1,745 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Mr Bowman's agreed net wages due were £359.31 after deductions, and the tribunal ordered payment of that sum. | Upheld | — | £359 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £7,922
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £2,820
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £947
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.95 ERA 1996
- Johnson v Monty Smith Garages Ltd EAT 657/79
- London Transport Executive v Clarke 1981 ICR 355
- s.98 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.