Mr Alexander Watt v Group Property — 2022

The case was heard as an undefended final hearing in Glasgow on 10 June 2022. The claimant, Mr Alexander Watt, gave evidence in person. The respondent, Group 3 Property, did not lodge an ET3 and did not appear. The tribunal found the claimant credible and reliable and accepted the documentary record he produced, including emails, payslips, bank statements, the contract of employment, the NEST correspondence, and the vehicle repair invoice.

The tribunal rejected the unfair dismissal claim brought under section 104D of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It found that the reason for the claimant's dismissal was Mr Gray's belief that the claimant's email of 7 January 2022 contained a threat, rather than any issue about pension contributions or the claimant's enquiries about them. The tribunal accepted that the claimant did not mean the email as a threat, but held that the relevant question under section 104D was the employer's actual reason for dismissal, and that reason was the perceived threat.

The tribunal upheld the claim for notice pay as a breach of contract claim. It held that the respondent had not shown any repudiatory breach by the claimant that would justify summary dismissal. On the tribunal's findings, the 7 January email was not a threat but an insistence on payment of wages, with a statement that the claimant would come and collect the money if it was not paid. The respondent was therefore in breach of contract in failing to give the contractual one month's notice, and damages of £1,682.09 were awarded.

The tribunal also upheld the holiday pay claim under regulation 14(2) of the Working Time Regulations 1998, the claim for one week's 'lying time' as an unlawful deduction from wages under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and the claim for van use and repair costs as sums payable in connection with employment. It accepted that the 31 January 2022 payslip reflected gross holiday pay of £933.23 and gross 'Week in Lieu' pay of £538.50, and applied the same net-to-gross ratio to award £805.19 and £464.62 respectively. It also accepted that the respondent had agreed to pay £100 per week for van use and had undertaken to meet the repair invoice, awarding £1,760 for those sums. The tribunal noted that the pension contribution issue was not pursued as a remedy in the judgment and was left to the Pensions Regulator.