Case 4103034/2023 · Employment Tribunal
: Ms D McDougall and Mr J McCaig Mr C Gallacher v Represented by: Mr K Gibson -15 Counsel [Instructed by Messrs Allan McDougall] Scottish Ambulance Service Board — 2024
- Case reference
- 4103034/2023
- Decision date
- 31 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge D Hoey Members
- Venue
- Glasgow
- Panel members
- Ms D McDougall, Mr J McCaig
Parties
2 namedClaimant
: Ms D McDougall and Mr J McCaig Mr C Gallacher
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr C Gallacher, a duty manager with over 20 years' service, was dismissed by the Scottish Ambulance Service Board after he arranged for a pool car to be used to collect him and his family from Glasgow Airport after a holiday. The respondent investigated the complaint, suspended him, held a disciplinary hearing, and concluded that his conduct amounted to gross misconduct. The appeal was not upheld. The separate detriment complaint based on trade union activity did not proceed on the merits and was recorded as withdrawn.
The tribunal accepted that the dismissal was for the potentially fair reason of conduct and applied section 98(4) ERA 1996 and the range of reasonable responses approach, referring to Burchell, Polkey, Iceland Frozen Foods and the other authorities set out in the reasons. It found that the respondent carried out a detailed investigation, had a genuine belief in misconduct, and fairly considered the claimant's explanations, mitigation and appeal before deciding that dismissal was appropriate.
The tribunal took account of the claimant's long service, clean disciplinary record, the absence of a clear written pool-car policy, his apology, his offer to repay any loss, the delay in the disciplinary process, and his case that he expected the trip to be completed during a break. It nevertheless held that an experienced duty manager ought to have known that using a service vehicle for purely personal purposes was not permitted, that the request had potential implications for patient safety and public confidence, and that dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses. Remedy was not considered because the unfair dismissal claim failed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Trade union | The judgment states that the remaining detriment complaint under section 146 TULRCA 1992 was dismissed having been withdrawn. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- s.98(1) and (2) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- Burchell test
- range of reasonable responses
- Polkey
- Iceland Frozen Foods
- West Midland v Tipton
- ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance matters
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.