Case 4104190/2022 · Employment Tribunal
E.T. Z (WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4104190/2022 Held at Dundee on 18, and July 2023 Employment Judge W A Meiklejohn Tribunal Member Mrs E Hossack Tribunal Member Mr S Larkin Mr P Andrews
The tribunal found that the claimant had an unsatisfactory attendance and lateness record and that the respondent genuinely believed there had been misconduct, with genuine grounds for that belief. However, no reasonable investigation took place before dismissal, no final disciplinary hearing was held, and the respondent did not follow the ACAS Code. The dismissal was therefore procedurally and substantively unfair.
For wrongful dismissal, the tribunal found that the claimant's absence on 17 and 18 May 2022 related to his mental health and was a matter of capability rather than conduct. The respondent was not entitled to treat that absence as gross misconduct or dismiss without notice.
The respondent did not have actual knowledge of the claimant's disability during employment, but the tribunal found it had not done all it could reasonably have been expected to do to find out whether he had a disability before dismissal. The claimant's dismissal was unfavourable treatment because of absence arising in consequence of his anxiety and depression, and the respondent did not show that dismissal without a fair procedure was a proportionate means of achieving acceptable attendance.
On remedy, the tribunal awarded unfair dismissal compensation over a limited period on the basis that, had a fair process been followed, the claimant was likely to have been dismissed later on capability grounds. It reduced the unfair dismissal award by 20% for the claimant's failure to contact the respondent during absence, applied a 20% ACAS uplift, awarded notice pay for wrongful dismissal, and made a lower-band Vento injury to feelings award because the evidence of injury was limited.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the dismissal both procedurally and substantively unfair. The award includes the basic award, compensatory elements, ACAS uplift adjustments, conduct reduction, and a section 38 Employment Act 2002 award for failure to provide written particulars. | Upheld | — | £4,501 |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal found the respondent was not entitled to dismiss without notice because the conduct relied on did not properly amount to gross misconduct. | Upheld | — | £1,034 |
| Disability discrimination | Claim of discrimination arising from disability under section 15 Equality Act 2010 succeeded. Remedy comprises £1500 injury to feelings plus £136.44 interest. | Upheld | Disability | £1,636 |
| Other | Failure to provide a written statement of initial employment particulars under section 1 Employment Rights Act 1996. The award was made under section 38 Employment Act 2002 and included within the unfair dismissal monetary award, not ordered as a separate standalone sum. | Upheld | — | £1,328 |
The 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.
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.