Case 4103721/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Butler v Bidvest Noonan (UK) Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 4103721/2022
- Decision date
- 13 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge S MacLean
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T Butler
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was employed as a security guard from 10 December 2020 and his employment transferred to the respondent around August 2021 under TUPE. He resigned with effect from 24 April 2022 after being told he could no longer bring his dog to work. He had less than two years' continuous employment.
The Tribunal found that the claimant did not have sufficient qualifying service to bring an unfair dismissal complaint under section 94 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It was not satisfied that the evidence showed serious and imminent danger for the purposes of section 100(e), so the automatic unfair dismissal exception did not apply.
The claimant also claimed holiday pay due on termination. The Tribunal found that the respondent had paid £489, which the claimant did not dispute was the amount due, into a bank account belonging to him. The holiday pay claim was therefore dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The Tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to consider the unfair dismissal complaint because the claimant had less than two years' continuous employment and was not automatically unfairly dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The Tribunal found that the respondent had paid the claimant the £489 holiday pay to which he was entitled on termination, although it was paid into his RBoS account rather than his newer TSB account. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 94 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 100(e) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 23 Employment Rights Act 1996
- regulation 30 Working Time Regulations 1998
- regulation 14(2) Working Time Regulations 1998
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.