Case 4102651/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Hawkins v Dem-Master Demolition Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 4102651/2020
- Decision date
- 22 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brewer
- Venue
- Edinburgh via Cloud Video Platform
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Hawkins
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Brewer, sitting in Edinburgh via Cloud Video Platform, held on 21 January 2021 that Mr G Hawkins was unfairly dismissed by Dem-master Demolition Limited. The judgment records a single substantive liability finding and does not identify any other claim types.
In relation to remedy, the tribunal said the claimant's conduct in refusing to return to work following furlough was wholly to blame for the dismissal. On that basis, it applied sections 122(2) and 123(6) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and considered it just and equitable to reduce both the basic award and the compensatory award by 100%.
The extracted judgment does not set out any monetary figures for the basic award, compensatory award, or overall sum, so no award amount can be recorded from the text provided.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed. It stated that the claimant's conduct in refusing to return to work following furlough was wholly to blame for the dismissal and said that, under sections 122(2) and 123(6) Employment Rights Act 1996, the basic and compensatory awards should be reduced by 100%. No monetary sum is stated in the extracted text. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- sections 122(2) and 123(6) Employment Rights Act 1996
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.