Case 4101494/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v McGill Facilities Management Limited (In Administration) — 2023
- Case reference
- 4101494/2022
- Decision date
- 26 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge A Kemp
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was decided on the papers under Rule 21 after the respondent's defence had effectively been withdrawn by the administrators, who consented to an award being made. Mrs Mandy Fleming had been employed by McGill Facilities Management Ltd from 5 February 1996 as a Client Operations Manager in Grangemouth. Her pay was £34,200 gross per year plus twice-yearly bonuses of £750, and she was 49 at termination.
The tribunal proceeded on documents only. It found that on 2 December 2021 a colleague, Robert McFarlane, said words to the effect "you dykes sit at the top" after a discussion about seating arrangements, and that he had made similar comments previously. The claimant was upset and embarrassed, raised a grievance, was told on 24 February 2022 that many people knew of the matter, and resigned on 25 February 2022. She obtained new employment on 1 March 2022 at lower remuneration.
On that material, the tribunal held that the remark and the respondent's handling of it amounted to harassment under section 26 of the Equality Act 2010 and that the claimant had been unlawfully dismissed under section 39. It also found that she had been dismissed for the purposes of section 95(1)(c) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and that the dismissal was unfair under section 98. The reasons refer to the Western Excavating constructive dismissal authorities, the implied term of trust and confidence in Malik, and the section 98(4) fairness test.
Remedy was split between the discrimination findings and unfair dismissal. The tribunal awarded £2,000 for injury to feelings, which it described as a moderate sum and noted was not separately interest-bearing. For unfair dismissal it awarded a basic award of £13,056 and a compensatory award of £350 for loss of statutory rights, leading to a total award of £15,406. The headnote line records the compensatory award as £350.35, but the reasons and total read £350 and £15,406.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | Found on the same facts as the sexual-orientation slur and the respondent's handling of the grievance; the £2,000 injury-to-feelings award was not apportioned between the Equality Act findings. | Upheld | Sexual orientation | — |
| Sexual orientation discrimination | The tribunal found the claimant was unlawfully dismissed under section 39 of the Equality Act 2010 on the same facts as the harassment finding; the £2,000 injury-to-feelings award was not split between the two Equality Act findings. | Upheld | Sexual orientation | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Constructive dismissal under section 95(1)(c) of the Employment Rights Act 1996; the reasons quantify the compensatory award at £350 for loss of statutory rights and the total at £15,406, although the headnote line records £350.35. | Upheld | — | £13,406 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £15,406
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £13,056
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £350
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
4 references- Western Excavating constructive dismissal test
- Malik implied term of trust and confidence
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- Vento bands
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.