Case 4102386/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Member P McColl Tribunal Member G McKay Mr David Watt v Represented by Himself Atalian Servest Integrated Solutions Limited and 1 other — 2021
- Case reference
- 4102386/2020
- Decision date
- 20 July 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge D Hoey Tribunal
- Panel members
- P McColl, G McKay
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Member P McColl Tribunal Member G McKay Mr David Watt
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that Atalian Servest Integrated Solutions Limited was a temporary work agency only when Mr Watt was supplied to the client for a discrete full shift in the press room. It found that his ordinary despatch shifts, including shifts where he also assisted in the press room, were not temporary assignments for the purposes of the Agency Workers Regulations 2010 but formed part of an open-ended, regular pattern of work over many years.
For the full press-room shifts, the tribunal found that Mr Watt was supplied temporarily and under the supervision and direction of the client. It accepted that client managers directed his work in the press room and that he was covering absence or urgent need. It nevertheless found that his press-room role was a supporting one and preferred the respondent's evidence that he was not doing the same work as the client's Operators or General Production Auxiliaries, including because he did not have the full skills for those roles and could not step up to Printer.
The regulation 5 claim failed because there was no comparable employee doing the same or broadly similar work. The tribunal found that Mr Watt was paid national minimum wage for despatch hours and an additional small amount for press-room hours, but concluded that the evidence did not show that the support work he actually performed should have been paid at the rate of a client Operator or GPA. The claim was therefore dismissed and no compensation was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agency worker regulations | By the hearing, earlier claims against other respondents had been withdrawn and dismissed; only the alleged breach of the Agency Workers Regulations 2010 proceeded. The tribunal rejected the regulation 5 complaint. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- Regulation 3(1)(a) Agency Workers Regulations 2010
- Regulation 4 Agency Workers Regulations 2010
- Regulation 5 Agency Workers Regulations 2010
- Moran
- Brooknight v Matei
- Kocur v Angard Staffing Solutions Ltd (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.