Case 4103392/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Fraser Rolley v Eros Retail Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 4103392/2020
- Decision date
- 20 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge I McFatridge
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Fraser Rolley
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Fraser Rolley started work for Eros Retail Ltd on 21 May 2018 as Area Manager on £27,000 a year and was given a company car. In May 2020, after a dispute about collecting strawberries for store deliveries, Mr Harris Aslam summarily dismissed him for gross misconduct. The tribunal accepted that the claimant had told Mr Shazad Aslam that he had already collected the strawberries when he had not, but it did not accept that he had lied to Mr Harris Aslam when he said he was at the farm. It also did not accept that there had been any prior formal disciplinary process or warning record.
On wrongful dismissal and unfair dismissal, the tribunal held that the claimant had not committed gross misconduct and was entitled to one week’s notice under s.86(1) ERA 1996. Applying s.97(2) ERA 1996, it found the effective date of termination was 20 May 2020, so the claimant had two years’ continuous service and could bring an unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal found the respondent had not proved that conduct was the real reason for dismissal. It said that, even if conduct had been the reason, the procedure was wholly deficient: the claimant was not told in advance that the meeting was disciplinary, was not told of any right to be accompanied, did not have an impartial decision-maker, and there was no proper investigation. The dismissal was therefore unfair.
On wages, the tribunal found that the claimant had not signed the proposed statement of terms or the deductions agreement, so those documents did not authorise deductions. The employee handbook clause relied on by the respondent was not enough on its own, and in any event no demand for payment had been made before the deduction. The tribunal found the vehicle damage had been caused by another driver, that there was no evidence of an invoice or actual repair cost, and that the claimant had cleaned the car as best he could before returning it. It rejected the claimed bonus element because no binding bonus term had been agreed.
The tribunal awarded £519.23 for wrongful dismissal notice pay, £1,090.37 for unlawful deductions, and £10,300.46 for unfair dismissal. The unfair dismissal award comprised a basic award of £1,038.46 and a compensatory award of £9,262.00. It also recorded that the compensatory award included a 25% uplift under s.207A TULR(C)A 1992 because the ACAS Code on disciplinary hearings was not followed, and it identified a prescribed element of £3,634.61 for the period 10 July to 24 August 2020.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal held the claimant was entitled to one week’s notice and awarded notice pay only. | Upheld | — | £519 |
| Unfair dismissal | The award comprised a basic award of £1,038.46 and a compensatory award of £9,262.00, including a 25% uplift under s.207A TULR(C)A 1992 and £400 for loss of statutory rights; the tribunal recorded a prescribed element of £3,634.61. | Upheld | — | £10,300 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | This covered unpaid wages and holiday pay: £726.92 arrears of pay plus £363.45 holiday pay. The tribunal rejected any bonus element and any deduction for vehicle damage or cleaning costs. | Upheld | — | £1,090 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £10,300
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £1,038
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £9,262
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
16 references- s.97(2) ERA 1996
- s.86(1) ERA 1996
- s.86(6) ERA 1996
- s.94 ERA 1996
- s.98 ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- s.13 ERA 1996
- s.207A TULR(C)A 1992
- Lancaster & Duke v Wileman
- Lanton Leisure Ltd v White and Gibson
- Duniec v Travis Perkins Trading Co Ltd
- Wilson v Racher
- Mbubaegbu v Homerton University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
- Galletly v Abel Environmental Services Ltd
- Jones v Salisbury Rugby Football Club
- ACAS Code on disciplinary hearings
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.