Case 4102740/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B Rielly v Represented by:10 Mrs V Rielly, Lay Representative Precision Windows and Doors Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 4102740/2024
- Decision date
- 9 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge S MacLean
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr B Rielly
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant worked for the respondent from 2 August 2021 until his dismissal on 3 November 2023. The case concerned an allegation that he was removing scrap/products from the recycling area. The tribunal found that employees had raised concerns in late September 2023, that Mrs Cassidy reviewed CCTV over the following weeks and saw a pattern of the claimant reversing his van into an area out of CCTV range, and that on 3 November 2023 the van was stopped before leaving the premises with products in the back. The claimant said he was only taking scrap and would not do it again; at appeal he said he had put the material in his van intending to clear the area.
Applying section 98 ERA 1996, including section 98(4), and the Burchell/Post Office v Foley approach, the tribunal held that Mrs Cassidy genuinely believed the claimant was guilty of theft, that she had reasonable grounds for that belief, and that the investigation was reasonable overall. The tribunal accepted that there were flaws in the disciplinary process, including no pre-dismissal hearing and no written allegation before dismissal, but found that the appeal stage mattered to the overall fairness assessment. The appeal was heard remotely on 8 December 2023 by an independent Peninsula consultant, who concluded there was substantial evidence that the claimant intended to remove property for his own gain and recommended that the dismissal decision stand despite process deficiencies.
The tribunal concluded that dismissal fell within the band of reasonable responses and therefore dismissed the unfair dismissal claim. The holiday pay claim was withdrawn at the final hearing after the claimant accepted he had been paid all holiday pay due, and the tribunal dismissed that claim under rule 52. The tribunal also recorded that the respondent had provided written employment particulars in October 2021, so no award arose under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed after the tribunal found the conduct dismissal fair under section 98 ERA 1996 and within the band of reasonable responses. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Claimant accepted at the final hearing that he had been paid all accrued holiday pay; the claim was withdrawn and dismissed under rule 52. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- s.98 ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- Burchell test
- Post Office v Foley
- range of reasonable responses
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.