Case 4103415/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S Flynn v Represented by:15 Mr T Merck, Solicitor Tender Loving Child Care Centre Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 4103415/2020
- Decision date
- 30 April 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Neilson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss S Flynn
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss S Flynn was employed by Tender Loving Child Care Centre Limited as team leader in the baby room of the nursery from 4 September 2008 until her dismissal with effect from 26 March 2020. The respondent alleged that she had encouraged children to say "smelly Laura" to a colleague on or around 4 October 2019 and had encouraged children to kick the colleague on or around 18 October 2019. The tribunal found that the respondent had a potentially fair reason for dismissal, namely misconduct, and that Ms Deighan genuinely believed those incidents had occurred.
The tribunal accepted that there were reasonable grounds for the respondent to believe the 4 and 18 October incidents had occurred, based on the evidence of LM and JG, but it did not accept that there were reasonable grounds to conclude that those incidents formed part of a wider campaign of harassment. Ms Deighan had relied on broader allegations about LM's private life and an ongoing picture of bullying, but those wider matters were not put to the claimant as part of the disciplinary case. The tribunal held that the respondent failed to carry out as much investigation as was reasonable in the circumstances because the claimant was not given a proper opportunity to answer the allegation that the two incidents were part of a broader campaign.
The appeal did not cure that defect because it was not a full rehearing and did not give the claimant a proper chance to respond to the wider campaign allegation. The tribunal therefore found the dismissal unfair under section 98(4) ERA 1996. It rejected any deduction for conduct. However, applying Polkey v A E Dayton Services, it held that there was a high likelihood the claimant would have been dismissed in any event, but not with 100% certainty, and applied a 75% reduction to compensation.
The parties agreed the pre-reduction basic award at £3,315.01 and the compensatory award at £16,984.30, including £300 for loss of statutory rights. After the 75% Polkey reduction, the tribunal assessed the basic award at £828.75 and the compensatory award at £4,246.08, making a total monetary award of £5,074.83. The prescribed element was £4,171.08 for the period from 24 March 2020 to 23 March 2021.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found that the respondent had shown misconduct as the reason for dismissal, but the dismissal was unfair under section 98(4) ERA 1996 because the respondent failed to investigate properly whether the alleged October 2019 incidents formed part of a wider campaign of harassment/bullying and did not put that broader allegation to the claimant. A Polkey reduction of 75% was applied to compensation because the tribunal considered there was a high likelihood of dismissal in any event, but not with 100% certainty. | Upheld | — | £5,075 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,075
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £829
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £4,246
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
8 references- s.98(1) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- British Home Stores Ltd v Burchell [1978] IRLR 379
- Polkey v A E Dayton Services [1987] IRLR 503
- Iceland Frozen Foods Ltd v Jones [1982] IRLR 439
- Foley v Post Office [2000] IRLR 827
- HSBC Bank v Madden [2000] ICR 1283
- Uddin v London Borough of Ealing UKEAT/0165/19
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.