Case 4102001/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Keith Davis v Represented by Mr M Briggs Solicitor Rosyth Royal Dockyard Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 4102001/2020
- Decision date
- 12 August 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Russell Bradley
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Keith Davis
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis conjoined case concerned Mr Keith Davis and others, together with Mr John Gourlay, and the meaning of the July 1997 collective agreement on redundancy compensation terms at Rosyth Royal Dockyard Limited. The material issue was the meaning of 'one days domestic/basic pay' in the Replacement Scheme, which was to apply after the transitional period from 1 April 2006.
The tribunal applied the approach to contractual interpretation set out in Wood v Capita Insurance Services Ltd and Arnold v Britton, with reference also to Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society and Burnett or Grant v International Insurance Company of Hanover Ltd. It held that 'one day’s pay' had a dynamic meaning, so that when the scheme operated it meant a day's pay by reference to the working pattern then in force. The tribunal answered the issue by stating that a day’s pay is calculated by reference to a quarter of a week's pay.
The tribunal rejected the respondent's implied-term and custom-and-usage arguments. It did not accept that the 2016 redundancy policy established a contractual method of calculation, noting that the policy said it did not form part of the terms and conditions of employment. It also relied on the 2005 Prospect letter and the later changes in working patterns, including the move to a four-day week, in concluding that the respondent had not established a uniform and notorious method of calculating a day's pay by dividing weekly pay by five.
On that basis the tribunal found that each claimant had not received their full contractual redundancy payment and that the respondent had breached the contracts. It awarded the agreed individual sums listed in the judgment, totalling £122,652.82, but did not make a payment order for Andrew Duff because no material had been produced to calculate his loss. John Gourlay's separate claim for a statutory redundancy payment was dismissed on the basis that it had been withdrawn.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal upheld the conjoined contractual redundancy payment claims brought by Mr Keith Davis and others, finding that the phrase 'one days domestic/basic pay' in the July 1997 collective agreement had a dynamic meaning and that the respondent had breached contract by using a five-day divisor. It awarded the agreed individual sums in the judgment, but did not quantify Andrew Duff's award because no material had been produced to calculate his loss. | Upheld | — | — |
| Redundancy | John Gourlay's separate claim for a statutory redundancy payment was dismissed by agreement after the respondent said it had been withdrawn. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £122,653
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
4 references- Wood v Capita Insurance Services Ltd
- Arnold v Britton
- Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society
- Burnett or Grant v International Insurance Company of Hanover Ltd
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.