Case 4104749/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Jones (sitting alone) Mr A Neilson v – represented by Mr I Burke, solicitor Burke and Bannerman B&K Hume Groundswork Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 4104749/2018
- Decision date
- 25 February 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ms Amanda
- Venue
- Edinburgh
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Jones (sitting alone) Mr A Neilson
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Neilson was employed as a general operative from 1 March 2008 until his dismissal on 26 January 2018. The tribunal found that the period from September to November 2010 was a lay-off rather than a dismissal, so his continuous service ran from 1 March 2008. On that basis he had 9 completed years' service and had not been paid his full notice entitlement; £350 unpaid notice pay was awarded.
The tribunal accepted that the dismissal was for capability arising from the claimant's sickness absence and hernia-related surgery, but it found the procedure unfair. The respondent did not contact the claimant during most of his absence, relied on a 20-minute occupational health phone assessment and a contradictory report, did not seek the claimant's GP's view, did not discuss the report with the claimant, and simply adopted the HR consultants' recommendations without independent consideration. The tribunal held the dismissal was outside the band of reasonable responses.
On appeal, the claimant produced a fit note dated 15 January 2018 stating that he could undertake a phased return to manual tasks within the limits of his discomfort and told the appeal hearing he was fit for work. The tribunal held the appeal process was also flawed because the report did not address that evidence and the respondent did not seriously consider re-employment. It noted that there was no evidence the absence had caused operational difficulties, that no permanent replacement had been found until around 18 months after dismissal, and that a reasonable employer would have given serious consideration to taking the claimant back. The tribunal awarded a basic award of £6,075, a compensatory award of £15,146.20, £350 for loss of statutory rights, and an overall total of £21,921.20. The Employment Protection (Recoupment of Jobseekers' Allowance and Income Support) Regulations 1996 applied, with a prescribed element of £12,250 for the period 26 January 2018 to 19 September 2018.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal accepted capability as the reason for dismissal but held the procedure and appeal process were unfair and that the dismissal was outside the band of reasonable responses. The award included the basic award, compensatory award and loss of statutory rights. | Upheld | — | £21,571 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal held that the claimant's continuous service began on 1 March 2008, because the September to November 2010 period was a lay-off and not a dismissal. It found he had not been paid his full notice entitlement and awarded £350 unpaid notice pay. | Upheld | — | £350 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £21,921
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £6,075
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £15,146
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
7 references- s.98(2)(a) ERA 1996
- East Lindsey District Council v Daubney [1997] ICR 566
- band of reasonable responses
- s.86 ERA 1996
- s.210(5) ERA 1996
- s.212(3) ERA 1996
- BS v Dundee City Council [2013] CSIH 91
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.