Case 4104691/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Neil Morrison v Represented by: Ms L Cartwright - Solicitor Monarch Transport Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 4104691/2020
- Decision date
- 28 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge B Campbell
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Neil Morrison
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Morrison worked for Monarch Transport Limited as a Traffic Manager from 1 March 2017 until 1 May 2020. The tribunal found that although his written contract described bonuses as discretionary, the respondent had in practice operated a bonus scheme each year and, by its email of 9 January 2020, had set out a 2020 scheme using monthly targets and quarterly payment. The tribunal accepted that the respondent wanted to alter the scheme to improve profitability, but it found that the email used mandatory language and was intended to set the operative terms for that year.
On the unlawful deduction claim, the tribunal held that bonus earned under the 2020 scheme was wages for the purposes of ERA and had become payable by 30 April 2020. It found that Mr Morrison had earned £5,520.41 gross bonus for 15 December 2019 to 29 February 2020, and that this was not paid when due. It also held that the April 2020 furlough arrangement was not agreed in writing, so he was entitled to full pay rather than 80% furlough pay. His separate claim for 1 May 2020 pay failed because the tribunal accepted the respondent's evidence that that day had been paid as holiday pay. The tribunal awarded £6,283.22, with interest at 8% from 30 April 2020.
On constructive dismissal, the tribunal rejected Mr Morrison's reliance on the respondent's general workplace manner, the January 2020 bonus changes and the instruction to use Monarch trucks as material breaches. It did, however, find a breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence in the 6 March 2020 review meeting, when Mr Weir called him a "bad apple" and increased his weekly target from £8,000 to £9,000. It also found that the 1 April 2020 intimation that bonus payments would be suspended indefinitely was both an anticipatory breach of the bonus arrangement and a further breach of trust and confidence. The tribunal held that Mr Morrison resigned promptly in response to those breaches and that the respondent had not shown a potentially fair reason or a reasonable process under section 98(4) ERA 1996, so the dismissal was unfair.
The tribunal awarded Mr Morrison the full compensation he sought for the unfair dismissal claim, consisting of a £1,614 basic award and £300 for loss of statutory rights. No additional earnings loss was claimed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The award covered unpaid bonus earned between 15 December 2019 and 29 February 2020 and the April 2020 full-pay shortfall. The separate 1 May 2020 pay point was rejected because that day had been paid as holiday pay. Interest was ordered at 8% per annum from 30 April 2020 until payment. | Upheld | — | £6,283 |
| Constructive dismissal | The tribunal held Mr Morrison had been constructively unfairly dismissed under section 95(1)(c) ERA 1996. It awarded the claimed basic award of £1,614 and £300 for loss of statutory rights. | Upheld | — | £1,914 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £8,197
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £1,614
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £300
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
6 references- section 13 ERA 1996
- section 27 ERA 1996
- Malik v Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA
- Nottinghamshire County Council v Meikle
- s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
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.