Case 4104303/2020 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND)5 Case No: 4104303/2020 Held on and December 2020 (CVP) Employment Judge: J D Young Mr Andrew Kennedy v Messrs. J & T Bell and 2 others — 2021
- Case reference
- 4104303/2020
- Decision date
- 3 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
Parties
4 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND)5 Case No: 4104303/2020 Held on and December 2020 (CVP) Employment Judge: J D Young Mr Andrew Kennedy
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant worked for the respondents, a mixed farm in Dumfriesshire, from 16 February 2016 until dismissal with effect from 24 July 2020. He was a part-time seasonal worker, paid at a flat rate of £10 per hour gross, and the tribunal found that he had not been given written particulars of employment during that period.
The tribunal found that the reason for dismissal was conduct-related: the respondents relied on the claimant's attitude on 24 July 2020, together with concerns about earlier work issues including damage to a neighbouring wall on 14 April 2020 and a barley drilling incident on 30 March 2020. Although the tribunal accepted that the claimant was upset and was aggressive in his stance when he challenged the allocation of work to another employee, it did not accept that his behaviour amounted to gross misconduct or that a reasonable employer would have dismissed him on that basis without more.
The tribunal held that the dismissal was both substantively and procedurally unfair. It found there had been no prior warning, no proper investigation into the earlier incidents, and no opportunity for the claimant to respond before dismissal. The appeal process did not cure those defects because material documents obtained after dismissal were not put to the claimant for comment. The tribunal therefore concluded that no reasonable employer would have dismissed in those circumstances.
On remedy, the tribunal awarded a basic award of £840 and a compensatory award of £4,902.45 for unfair dismissal. The compensatory award included 4 weeks' notice pay, a sum for loss of statutory rights, a 20% Polkey reduction reflecting the chance of a fair dismissal after proper process, a 10% reduction for failure to mitigate from the end of notice, and a 15% uplift for unreasonable failure to comply with the ACAS Code. It also awarded £420 under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 for the failure to provide written particulars, making the total monetary award £6,162.45.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found dismissal was unfair under s.98 ERA 1996. The award comprised a basic award of £840 and a compensatory award of £4,902.45; the compensatory award included a notice-pay element. | Upheld | — | £5,742 |
| Other | Award under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 for failure to provide a written statement of employment particulars. The tribunal assessed this at three weeks' gross pay. | Upheld | — | £420 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,162
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £840
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £4,902
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
13 references- s.98 ERA 1996
- Burchell v British Home Stores
- Iceland Frozen Foods Ltd v Jones
- London Ambulance Service NHS Trust v Small
- W Devis and Sons Ltd v Atkins
- J Sainsbury's Plc v Hitt
- Polkey v A E Dayton Services Ltd
- O'Dea v ICS Chemicals Ltd
- Software 2000 Ltd v Andrews
- Rao v Civil Aviation Authority
- Grantchester Construction (Eastern) Ltd v Attrill
- s.207A(2) TULR(C)A 1992
- s.38 Employment Act 2002
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.