Case 4103101/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Mary Gifford v Represented by: Mr B Nichol Solicitor Shetland Care Attendant Scheme — 2019
- Case reference
- 4103101/2019
- Decision date
- 30 September 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge A Kemp
- Venue
- Aberdeen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Mary Gifford
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Mary Gifford had been employed by the respondent since 4 August 2003 as Manager/Co-ordinator. In April 2018 the board decided, without prior consultation with her, to change both her and Mrs Fraser to "Joint Co-ordinator" and to share duties and responsibilities. The tribunal found this was a material change to her terms and conditions, not merely a title change, and that no attempt was made to agree the new arrangements despite the appeal letter referring to shared duties and new contracts.
The tribunal also found that when the claimant went off sick on 30 July 2018 she had initially been paid full pay, that the respondent had adopted the Shetland Islands Council sickness policy providing six months' full pay and six months' half pay, and that there was no evidence she had been told the full-pay arrangement was discretionary. On 10 January 2019 the board decided to move her to SSP retrospectively from 1 December 2018. The tribunal held that this was a material breach of contract and also an unlawful deduction from wages.
The tribunal concluded that the cumulative events amounted to a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence and that the claimant resigned in response within 9 days, so she was constructively dismissed and unfairly dismissed. It rejected the section 104 claim, finding that the principal reason for the SSP decision was not the grievance or tribunal claim, but concerns about her work for another employer, the missed occupational health appointment, and the respondent's financial position. Remedy was a basic award of £7,181.55 and a compensatory award of £10,681.10, including agreed pension loss of £2,400 and net earnings loss to November 2019, plus £1,228.94 for unlawful deductions, making total monetary awards of £19,091.59.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Found to be a constructive dismissal under s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996; the tribunal held that the unilateral change to the claimant's role, the grievance handling, and the retrospective reduction to SSP cumulatively breached trust and confidence. | Upheld | — | £17,863 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held that payment at SSP level from 1 December 2018 to termination was an unlawful deduction from wages under s.13 ERA 1996. | Upheld | — | £1,229 |
| Victimisation | The section 104 ERA 1996 claim failed because the tribunal found the principal reason for the pay decision was not the grievance or tribunal proceedings, but concerns about other work, an occupational health appointment, and the respondent's finances. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £19,092
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £7,182
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £10,681
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
9 references- Western Excavating v Sharp
- Malik v BCCI
- Baldwin v Brighton and Hove City Council
- Leeds Dental Team Ltd v Rose
- Kaur v Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust
- s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- s.104 ERA 1996
- s.13 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.