Case 4101932/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Iain Miller v Represented by: Mr A Crammond - Counsel & Ms L Braunholtz -15 Trainee Solicitor MacDonald Resorts Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 4101932/2023
- Decision date
- 27 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rory McPherson
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Iain Miller
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Miller was employed as Managing Director at Aviemore from 18 July 2019 and was dismissed without notice on 6 December 2022 after a disciplinary process led by Ms Macholla. The process centred on matters including the Strathspey Hotel refugee accommodation complaints, Mr Miller’s response to the local community council email that was copied to a journalist, the unserviced rooms used by a film crew, Dalfaber Resort, the Campbell family dinner, financial forecasts and manning costs, standards in the hotel, and a written-off vehicle being used on resort. Ms Macholla upheld allegations 1, 2, 3 and 5, did not uphold allegation 7, and said allegations 4, 6 and 8 would, if taken alone, have led her to a written warning.
The tribunal held that the respondent had fairly pleaded a case based on conduct and/or some other substantial reason, and that Mr Miller understood the allegations and had adequate time to prepare. It found that Ms Macholla’s informal investigation was reasonable in the circumstances, that it was permissible for her to chair the disciplinary hearing, and that she approached the matter with an open mind. It also found that the appeal before Mr Gillies was conducted impartially and that the process as a whole complied with the Burchell approach and the ACAS Code of Practice.
On the substantive reason for dismissal, the tribunal held that the dismissal was for some other substantial reason, namely a breakdown of trust and confidence arising from the upheld allegations, and that this was not a pretext for some other motive. It concluded that, in the circumstances of this senior role, the dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses. The unfair dismissal claim therefore failed. The tribunal added that, if it had found procedural unfairness, it would have applied a 100% Polkey reduction and a 100% reduction for contributory conduct, but because the dismissal was fair no compensation was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the respondent gave fair notice of a case based on conduct and/or some other substantial reason, and concluded the dismissal was fair. It upheld allegations 1, 2, 3 and 5 in the disciplinary process, did not uphold allegation 7, and said allegations 4, 6 and 8 would have warranted warnings if they had stood alone. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £0
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
12 references- s.94 ERA 1996
- s.98(1) ERA 1996
- s.98(2) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- Burchell
- Iceland Frozen Foods
- Foley v Post Office
- Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd
- ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures
- s.122(2) ERA 1996
- s.123(6) ERA 1996
- Nelson v BBC (No 2)
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.