Case 4104630/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr N McElwee v Vehicle Trade Centre — 2021
- Case reference
- 4104630/2020
- Decision date
- 21 July 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge A Jones
- Panel members
- Mr D Frew, Mr P O'Hagan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr N McElwee
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr McElwee worked for Vehicle Trade Centre from 28 January 2017 until his dismissal on 11 June 2020, latterly as Car Sales Manager at the Ayr branch. The tribunal found that he had agreed a pay structure including a monthly £500 site bonus at Ayr, that he had raised concerns that holiday pay was being calculated without commission, and that he also challenged the calculation of his furlough pay. After a telephone call on 21 May 2020, he was told he was being made redundant, followed by an email letter the same day; his appeal was later rejected by Ms Logan.
On the whistleblowing issue, the tribunal held that the claimant's complaints about holiday pay calculations were protected disclosures under the ERA because they concerned a failure to comply with a legal obligation, were made in the public interest, and were made in good faith. It nevertheless found that the protected disclosure was not the sole or principal reason for dismissal. The tribunal found that the claimant had also raised other pay issues and concluded that the dismissal followed the 21 May 2020 exchange rather than being driven principally by the disclosure itself.
The tribunal upheld the unfair dismissal claim. It rejected the respondent's redundancy explanation, finding that there was no documentary record of a redundancy process, no real selection exercise, no warning or consultation, and no consideration of suitable alternative employment. It also found that no other employees were made redundant and that the decision to dismiss was taken in response to the claimant repeatedly raising pay issues. Even if redundancy had been the reason, the tribunal held the dismissal would still have been unfair under section 98(4) ERA 1996, and it rejected the respondent's Polkey argument.
The age discrimination claim failed because there was no evidence from which age could be inferred as a reason for dismissal, and the tribunal noted that older employees in similar positions remained employed. On the bonus issue, the tribunal held that the claimant remained entitled to the £500 site bonus for February and March 2020; the unlawful deduction claim was time-barred, but the same failure was a breach of contract and £1,000 damages were awarded. For remedy on the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal held that he would likely have remained on furlough until the Ayr branch reopened around the end of May 2021, awarded £30,000 for loss of earnings plus £500 for loss of statutory rights, recorded a prescribed element of £9,614.28 for the recoupment period of 17 June to 17 December 2020, and set the total award at £31,500.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal rejected the respondent's redundancy case, found no warning, consultation, selection exercise or consideration of alternative employment, and held the dismissal was unfair. It awarded £30,000 for loss of earnings and £500 for loss of statutory rights. | Upheld | — | £30,500 |
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal found the claimant had made a protected disclosure about holiday pay calculations, but it was not satisfied that the disclosure was the sole or principal reason for dismissal. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Age discrimination | The tribunal found there was no evidence from which an inference could be drawn that the claimant was dismissed because of age, and noted that older staff in similar roles remained employed. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held the non-payment of the February and March 2020 site bonus was an unlawful deduction from wages, but the claim was time-barred under section 23 ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal held the claimant was contractually entitled to the £500 site bonus in February and March 2020, and ordered £1,000 damages for breach of contract. | Upheld | — | £1,000 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £31,500
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £30,500
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
9 references- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.43B ERA 1996
- s.43C ERA 1996
- s.103A ERA 1996
- s.98 ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- s.23 ERA 1996
- Polkey v A E Dayton Services Ltd 1987 IRLR 50
- Employment Tribunals (Extension of Jurisdiction) Order (Scotland) 1994 art. 3
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.