Member J McCullagh Tribunal Member J Burnett Mr H Rae v Ramsay and Mrs Arabella Ramsay — 2019

The claimant worked as a keeper/ghillie/caretaker at South Chesthill Estate under a contract that linked his employment to the housekeeper's employment. A direct marriage-discrimination claim was withdrawn before the hearing. When the housekeeper, KM, resigned in August 2018, the respondent served the claimant with notice on 17 August 2018 terminating his employment on 24 February 2019.

On unfair dismissal, the tribunal rejected the respondent's reliance on some other substantial reason under s.98(1)(b) ERA 1996. It found that the respondent had done very little to see whether a housekeeper could be found without dismissing the claimant, had not consulted him about alternatives, and had not explored using Keeper's Cottage or other arrangements. The tribunal held that the respondent had not shown a reason capable of justifying dismissal and that the dismissal was substantively unfair.

The tribunal also held that the dismissal was procedurally unfair under s.98(4) ERA 1996. The claimant was handed a pre-prepared dismissal letter at a "going forward" meeting without advance warning, there was no meaningful consultation about ways to avoid dismissal, and the appeal process was flawed because the first appeal was heard by Mr Ramsay, who had made the original decision, and the second by Mrs Ramsay. The tribunal found no Polkey reduction should be made and said a fair process would likely have avoided dismissal; in any event it considered the claimant would have remained employed until at least 8 April 2019, when he found other work.

The tribunal awarded a basic award of £5,663.98 and a compensatory award of £2,370.99 for unfair dismissal, including six weeks' net wage loss, loss of statutory rights, pension loss and dog allowance. Separately, it awarded £207.14 for 3.5 days of untaken 2019 annual leave, so the monetary awards in the judgment total £8,242.11.

The sex discrimination claim failed. The tribunal accepted that the respondent had a stereotypical preference for a couple, but it did not find facts from which it could infer treatment because of sex, and it was not satisfied that the claimant had been treated less favourably than a female keeper in the same circumstances. It also rejected the indirect discrimination case for lack of evidence that any PCP disadvantaged men. The remaining £700 claim for a rifle contribution was dismissed because the tribunal found insufficient evidence of any contractual obligation.