Case 4103780/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Allan v Represented by: Mr J Gildea - Solicitor Office And Industrial Cleaners Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 4103780/2020
- Decision date
- 2 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge F Eccles
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Allan
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was a multiple claim brought by Mr D Allan and Mr P Dewar against Office And Industrial Cleaners Ltd. The tribunal found that Mr Allan had been employed from 1982 to 2 June 2020 as a contract cleaner/window cleaner with supervisory responsibilities, and Mr Dewar from 4 July 2016 to 2 June 2020 as an office cleaner. After the March 2020 COVID lockdown, Mr Barbour wrote on 26 March 2020 saying the respondent's contracts were closed and wages might not be paid, and both claimants later took a temporary NHS contract from 6 April 2020.
On 20 May 2020 Mr Barbour met Mr Allan and handed him a letter stating that they had agreed to terminate his employment, and a copy was passed to Mr Dewar. The tribunal found that both claimants had been dismissed by the respondent and did not accept that they had resigned or otherwise acted so as to justify a conclusion that they had terminated their employment. It rejected the respondent's reliance on redundancy or some other substantial reason and, applying section 98(4) ERA 1996, found that no fair procedure had been followed: there was no notice of possible dismissal, no explanation of how dismissal could have been avoided, no right of appeal, and no ACAS procedure.
The tribunal therefore held that both dismissals were unfair under section 94 ERA 1996. For Mr Allan it awarded a basic award of £11,660, notice pay of £4,433.40, holiday pay of £352.15 and £500 for loss of statutory rights, and said he was also entitled to loss of wages to 1 November 2020 and an uplift for failure to comply with the ACAS procedure. For Mr Dewar it awarded a basic award of £1,225.44, notice pay of £768.36, holiday pay of £204.89 and £500 for loss of statutory rights, and said he was also entitled to loss of earnings to 1 November 2020 and an ACAS uplift. The extracted text does not state the amount of the loss-of-wages or loss-of-earnings component, so the judgment's overall total is not stated in the text provided.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | First claimant, Mr D Allan. The tribunal found he was dismissed by the respondent, did not accept that he had resigned, rejected redundancy and other substantial reason as a fair basis, and held the dismissal unfair under sections 94 and 98 ERA 1996. It stated that he was entitled to a basic award of £11,660, notice pay of £4,433.40, holiday pay of £352.15 and £500 for loss of statutory rights, and also to loss of wages to 1 November 2020 and an ACAS uplift, but the extracted text does not state the amount of the loss-of-wages component. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Second claimant, Mr P Dewar. The tribunal found he was dismissed by the respondent, did not accept that he had resigned, rejected redundancy and other substantial reason as a fair basis, and held the dismissal unfair under sections 94 and 98 ERA 1996. It stated that he was entitled to a basic award of £1,225.44, notice pay of £768.36, holiday pay of £204.89 and £500 for loss of statutory rights, and also to loss of earnings to 1 November 2020 and an ACAS uplift, but the extracted text does not state the amount of the loss-of-earnings component. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- section 94 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 98(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- ACAS code
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.