Case 4101678/2017 · Employment Tribunal
ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4101678/2017 Preliminary Hearing at Glasgow on October 2017 and February 20185 Employment Judge: M A Macleod (sitting alone) Ben Pierson v 15 Saltire Facilities Management Limited — 2018
- Case reference
- 4101678/2017
- Decision date
- 16 February 2018
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Murdo MacLeod
Parties
2 namedClaimant
ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4101678/2017 Preliminary Hearing at Glasgow on October 2017 and February 20185 Employment Judge: M A Macleod (sitting alone) Ben Pierson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningA preliminary hearing was listed to determine the claimant’s employment status during his engagement with Saltire Facilities Management Limited. The hearing on 3 October 2017 was adjourned on the application of the claimant’s representative. A further two-day preliminary hearing was then fixed for 13 February 2018.
The claimant’s representative applied on 27 January 2018 to postpone the February hearing because she was instructed in another Glasgow Employment Tribunal hearing on the same dates. The application was opposed and, by email of 8 February 2018, the tribunal refused postponement. On 13 February 2018 the respondent attended, but neither the claimant nor his representative appeared. The tribunal noted there was no explanation beyond a brief conversation indicating that the representative would not be attending this case.
Applying Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, and taking account of the absence of the claimant and his representative without good reason being advanced, the tribunal dismissed the claim. The tribunal recorded that it was left to conclude that the representative had chosen between two hearings in which she was simultaneously instructed, and that the claimant and his representative had to accept the consequences of non-attendance. No substantive findings were made on the underlying unfair dismissal or unlawful deduction claims.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed under Rule 47 because the claimant and his representative did not attend the continued preliminary hearing; the tribunal did not determine the merits of the claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed under Rule 47 because the claimant and his representative did not attend the continued preliminary hearing; the tribunal did not determine the merits of the claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.