Mr S Cree v Represented by: Mr E Mowat - Solicitor Prestwick Aircraft Maintenance Ltd — 2019

Mr Cree started with Prestwick Aircraft Maintenance Ltd on 28 August 2012. At the hearing, the breach of contract and unlawful deduction claims were withdrawn and dismissed under Rule 52. The dispute centred on how the respondent handled his complaints about supervisors Kyle Officer and Mark McDowall, together with wider concerns later raised about an earlier incident involving Paul Nix, alleged sexual-harassment accusations, promotion exams, and checking of fob times. He first raised issues in February 2017, went off sick in March 2017, made further complaints in meetings in May and June 2017, and then sent a written grievance on 21 August 2017.

Applying Western Excavating v Sharp and Malik, the tribunal held that the respondent failed to address the August 2017 written grievance at all. The 26 September 2017 meeting and the appeal process were treated as if they only concerned the earlier February complaint, and Mr Marshall took a narrow approach that did not engage with the wider issues raised in the written grievance. The tribunal found that this failure destroyed trust and confidence, was not shown to have reasonable and proper cause, and that Mr Cree resigned on 18 January 2018 because of that breach after giving the internal process time to run its course. The respondent did not advance a potentially fair reason under section 98(1) ERA 1996, so the dismissal was unfair.

On remedy, the tribunal rejected deductions for contributory fault and was not satisfied that the claimant had failed to mitigate loss. It awarded a basic award of £2,060.30, a compensatory figure based on 47 weeks' net loss at £353 a week less £8,748.66 earned in alternative employment, and £350 for loss of statutory rights. A 20% ACAS uplift was applied, taking the unfair dismissal award to £12,303.17. Separately, under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002, the tribunal made an additional award of £824.12 because the written statement of particulars did not correctly set out the claimant's hours of work and no section 4 change statement was issued if those hours had changed.