Case 4104925/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss M Carrington v Scotsman Group plc — 2023
- Case reference
- 4104925/2022
- Decision date
- 20 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge R King
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss M Carrington
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss Carrington was employed by Scotsman Group Plc from 16 November 2018 until her dismissal on 16 June 2022. After furlough ended, the respondent sought to return her to work in shifts that matched the Corinthian's trading pattern and, later, offered discussions about work at another Glasgow venue, Social, which could accommodate the Monday to Wednesday hours she said she wanted. The tribunal found that the claimant did not engage meaningfully with those efforts, did not provide a proper explanation for her erratic contact, and persisted in insisting on Monday to Wednesday work in the pastry kitchen at the Corinthian even though that venue was not open on those days.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the reason for dismissal was conduct, namely continued unauthorised absence and failure to engage with attempts to facilitate a return to work, and held the dismissal fell within the band of reasonable responses. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the claimant was not ready, willing, or available to return to work after furlough ended, so no wages were properly payable for the period claimed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- s.94 ERA 1996
- s.98(1) and s.98(2) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- British Home Stores v Burchell
- Iceland Frozen Foods Limited v Jones
- Polkey v AE Dayton Services Limited
- Acas Code of Practice
- Miles v Wakefield Metropolitan District Council
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.