Case 4102904/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs M Kelly v Represented by: Ms D Flanigan - Solicitor St Mary’s Kenmure Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 4102904/2019
- Decision date
- 20 May 2020
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Claire McManus
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs M Kelly
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that both Mrs Kelly and Ms Irvine had been unfairly dismissed by St Mary’s Kenmure Ltd, and the respondent conceded unfair dismissal in respect of each claim under s.98(4) ERA 1996. The dismissals arose from events in the Arran unit on 29 July 2018. For Mrs Kelly, the respondent later relied on her remaining seated while young people were in or around the office and on a mistaken belief that an item had been removed from the office and later used for self-harm. For Ms Irvine, the respondent relied at appeal on her having left AB and MN unsupervised in the computer room, after a final written warning had been issued on a different and previously disclosed basis.
On remedy, the tribunal found contributory conduct only in Mrs Kelly’s case. It held that her conduct in remaining seated while young people accessed the office contributed to her dismissal, but reduced both her basic and compensatory awards by 50% rather than adopting the larger reduction sought by the respondent. It did not find contributory conduct by Ms Irvine, accepting her explanation that she was dealing with a self-harm incident, noting the absence of a policy or training on use of the PIT alarm in the circumstances, and holding that her conduct was not blameworthy for s.123(6) ERA 1996 purposes.
The tribunal also made ACAS Code findings. It held that the respondent had unreasonably failed to comply with the Code in Mrs Kelly’s case because the disciplinary policy did not make clear that breach of the door-locking SOP or allowing a young person into the office could amount to gross misconduct, and it applied a 5% uplift. In Ms Irvine’s case, it held that the respondent unreasonably failed to specify the allegation that ultimately led to dismissal and failed to offer an appeal against the dismissal decision, applying a 20% uplift. Mrs Kelly’s final award was £2,533.65 basic award and £10,199.69 compensatory award, total £12,733.34, subject to recoupment of the prescribed element of £1,911.04. Ms Irvine’s final award was £5,472.91 basic award and £52,469.73 compensatory award after grossing up, total £57,942.64.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Unfair dismissal was conceded. The tribunal reduced the basic and compensatory awards by 50% for contributory conduct and applied a 5% ACAS uplift; total award £12,733.34. | Upheld | — | £12,733 |
| Unfair dismissal | Unfair dismissal was conceded. The tribunal found no contributory conduct, applied a 20% ACAS uplift, and grossed up the compensatory award; total award £57,942.64. | Upheld | — | £57,943 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £70,676
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £8,007
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £62,669
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
13 references- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- BHS v Burchell
- s.122 ERA 1996
- s.123(1) ERA 1996
- s.123(6) ERA 1996
- Nelson v BBC (No.2)
- Hollier v Plysu Ltd
- s.207A(2) TULR(C)A
- Lawless v Print Plus Ltd
- Kuehne and Nagel Ltd v Cosgrove
- Digital Equipment Co Ltd v Clements (No 2)
- Shove v Downs Surgical Plc
- Strouthos v London Underground
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.