Case 4103053/2019 · Employment Tribunal
E.T. Z (WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND)5 Case Number: 4103053/2019 Held at Glasgow on (reading day), 14, and January 2020 Employment Judge: W A Meiklejohn Tribunal Member: Mr G Noble Tribunal Member: Mr J Burnett Mr Kevin Colhoun v Limited (in Liquidation) — 2020
- Case reference
- 4103053/2019
- Decision date
- 3 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mellish
- Venue
- Glasgow
- Panel members
- Mr G Noble, Mr J Burnett
Parties
2 namedClaimant
E.T. Z (WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND)5 Case Number: 4103053/2019 Held at Glasgow on (reading day), 14, and January 2020 Employment Judge: W A Meiklejohn Tribunal Member: Mr G Noble Tribunal Member: Mr J Burnett Mr Kevin Colhoun
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant relied on an email of 28 August 2017 about issues at the Arla Lockerbie site as a protected disclosure concerning health and safety. The tribunal had considerable doubt that the wording amounted to a disclosure of information for s.43B ERA purposes, and found that the lack of detail meant it did not tend to show that any individual's health and safety had been, was being, or was likely to be endangered.
The tribunal also found no causal link between the alleged protected disclosure and the respondent's later conduct. It found that the respondent's decisions to place Mr Mallaby at Arla Lockerbie and appoint Ms Burke as temporary line manager were reasonable management responses to the matters raised, and that the later absence management and grievance processes were not caused by the alleged whistleblowing.
On constructive dismissal, the tribunal found no breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. It considered the delay in arranging occupational health regrettable, and noted that parts of the grievance had been partially upheld internally, but held that these matters did not amount to a fundamental breach. The claimant's employment therefore ended by resignation, not dismissal.
On holiday pay, the tribunal accepted that holiday pay had been due on termination, but found that the respondent had overpaid company sick pay by a larger amount. The non-payment was treated as recovery of an overpayment of wages and was excluded from the unlawful deduction provisions by s.14(1) ERA 1996.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Claim advanced as constructive unfair dismissal. The tribunal found no conduct by the respondent amounting to a repudiatory breach of contract and held that the claimant resigned rather than being constructively dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Claim advanced as automatically unfair constructive dismissal by reason of protected disclosure. The tribunal doubted that the 28 August 2017 email disclosed sufficient information tending to show health and safety endangerment, and in any event found no causal link between the alleged disclosure and the respondent's conduct. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Holiday pay was otherwise due on termination, but the respondent offset it against an overpayment of company sick pay. The tribunal held the deduction fell within s.14(1) ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £0
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
11 references- s.43B(1) ERA 1996
- s.43C ERA 1996
- s.103A ERA 1996
- s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996
- Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp
- Malik v Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA
- London Borough of Waltham Forest v Omilaju
- Cavendish Munro Professional Risks Management Ltd v Geduld
- s.13 ERA 1996
- s.14(1) ERA 1996
- s.27(1) ERA 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.