Case 4103193/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Member P McColl Tribunal Member M McAllister Mr D Fyall v Glen Transport Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 4103193/2019
- Decision date
- 12 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Robison Tribunal
- Venue
- Glasgow
- Panel members
- P McColl, M McAllister
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Member P McColl Tribunal Member M McAllister Mr D Fyall
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Fyall worked for Glen Transport Limited from 11 May 2009 until he resigned by letter dated 3 January 2019. The tribunal found that relations had deteriorated during 2018 after a series of letters from Mr Taylor about timekeeping, instructions, overtime, and conduct, followed by a mediated meeting with HR consultant Alison Melville on 28 November 2018. At that meeting Mr Fyall raised concerns about the use of the class 1 vehicle on 5 November 2018 when it was not road legal, and he treated that as a protected disclosure. The respondent later confirmed in its 10 December 2018 letter that the incident would not happen again and that he would still be paid extra when class 1 driving was required.
The tribunal rejected the alleged breach of contract and constructive dismissal case. It found that the proposed change from 'Class 1 Driver' to 'driver' did not amount to a fundamental breach, noting that Mr Fyall had not driven the articulated lorry since at least 30 April 2016 and that the respondent explained it no longer needed a class 1 driver. It also held that the other matters relied on, including the letters of concern, the handling of discipline, the appointment of Thomas Stoddart, the sharing of a private mobile number, and the conduct at the mediation meeting, did not destroy mutual trust and confidence or otherwise make it reasonable for Mr Fyall to resign.
The public interest disclosure claims also failed. The tribunal accepted that protected disclosures had been made, but held that Mr Fyall did not suffer a detriment on the ground of those disclosures and that the evidence did not support any causal link between the disclosures and the treatment complained of. It also rejected the alternative unfair dismissal arguments under ordinary principles and s.103A ERA 1996 because it found there was no dismissal at all. At submissions Mr Fyall was no longer insisting on the redundancy payment claim, so the tribunal did not award any redundancy remedy. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal separately considered the alleged express-term change from 'Class 1 Driver' to 'driver' and the pay/supplement issue, and found no breach of contract. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The tribunal held there was no fundamental breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence, whether the alleged incidents were viewed individually or cumulatively, so the claimant's resignation did not amount to constructive dismissal under s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal rejected the alternative unfair dismissal arguments under s.98(4) and s.103A ERA 1996, holding that there was no dismissal and no basis for saying any dismissal was for a protected-disclosure reason. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal accepted that protected disclosures had been made, but found no detriment on the ground that the disclosures were made, and no sufficient causal link between the disclosures and the matters complained of. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- Western Excavating Ltd v Sharp
- Malik v Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA
- Lewis v Motorworld Garages Ltd
- s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- s.103A ERA 1996
- s.47B 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.