Case 4101062/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr John Easton v - Solicitor Polmont Golf Club Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 4101062/2022
- Decision date
- 24 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge P O’Donnell
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr John Easton
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal found that the Claimant’s employment transferred from Polmont Golf Club Limited to Braes Golf Centre Limited on or around 1 January 2020 under TUPE, and that the First Respondent was therefore no longer the correct respondent for the remaining claims. The separate TUPE complaint that the Respondents failed to consult the Claimant was dismissed because it was presented out of time. The Tribunal held that ignorance of the right was not reasonable in the circumstances, that the Claimant had not taken steps to investigate his rights at the time of the transfer, and that the claim was not brought within any further reasonable period.
On the merits of dismissal, the Tribunal found that the Claimant was expressly dismissed by the Second Respondent on 6 October 2021. It rejected the Respondent’s position that the Claimant had repudiated his contract by not returning on 1 October 2021, holding that the Respondent had not properly investigated his intentions and had not given a sustainable basis for treating his conduct as a repudiation. The Tribunal further held that, even if there had been ambiguity, the Claimant had taken reasonable steps to clarify matters by attending work, contacting management and his union representative, and sending a final email on 21 October 2021. The dismissal was held to be unfair because the Second Respondent failed to prove a potentially fair reason for dismissal and, in any event, there was no fair procedure at all.
The Tribunal dismissed the redundancy pay claim because there was no evidence that the Claimant had been dismissed by reason of redundancy. It upheld the wrongful dismissal element as a breach of contract claim for dismissal without notice, but made no separate compensation award because the notice-period loss was already covered by the unfair dismissal award. It also dismissed the separate breach of contract claim relating to pension contributions, because no contractual pension entitlement was proved and the relevant pension rights did not transfer under TUPE. The unlawful deduction from wages claim for 4 to 6 October 2021 was dismissed because the Tribunal treated the payment made on 8 October 2021 as payment for that work. The holiday pay claim succeeded: the Tribunal held that the Claimant was entitled to payment in lieu of untaken holiday on termination, including carry-over from the 2020/2021 leave year, and awarded £3,014.40. The unfair dismissal award was £19,332.79, made up of a basic award of £13,356.24 and a compensatory award of £5,976.55 after a 25% uplift. Taken together with the holiday pay award, the monetary outcome was £22,347.19.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) | The claim that the First and Second Respondents failed to consult under TUPE was lodged out of time. The Tribunal refused to exercise its discretion to hear it out of time and dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The Tribunal found that the Claimant was expressly dismissed by the Second Respondent on 6 October 2021 and that the dismissal was unfair. The award included a 25% ACAS uplift and no Polkey or contributory fault deduction. | Upheld | — | £19,333 |
| Redundancy | The Tribunal found no evidence that the dismissal was by reason of redundancy and dismissed the statutory redundancy pay claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The Tribunal held that the Second Respondent breached the contract by dismissing the Claimant without notice, but made no separate compensation award because the notice period was already covered by the unfair dismissal award. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | This was the pension contributions breach of contract claim. The Tribunal found no proved contractual entitlement to pension contributions against the Second Respondent and dismissed the claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim for wages for 4 to 6 October 2021 was dismissed because the Tribunal found the Claimant had been paid for that period by the payment made on 8 October 2021. |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £22,347
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £13,356
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £5,977
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
16 references- Regulation 15 TUPE 2006 time limit
- Porter v Bandridge Ltd
- London International College v Sen
- Palmer and Saunders v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council
- Wall's Meat Co Ltd v Khan
- Avon County Council v Haywood-Hicks
- Westward Circuits Ltd v Read
- Northumberland County Council v Thompson
- Western Excavating v Sharp
- Malik v Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA
- Lewis v Motorworld Garages Ltd
- Kaur v Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust
- s.98 ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd
- Regulation 14 WTR 1998
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.