Case 4104997/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. D McCann v Redpath Construction Limited and 4 others — 2023
- Case reference
- 4104997/2022
- Decision date
- 10 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge P McMahon
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
6 namedClaimant
Mr. D McCann
Respondents
- Redpath Construction Limited
- JUDGEMENT OF THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL The judgment of the tribunal is that:- (i) The
- ’s wages in July 2022 (of the gross sum of £1,600 (ONE THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED POUNDS)) and August 2022 (of the gross sum of £1,706 (ONE THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED AND SIX POUNDS)) contrary to section 13(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (the “ERA”). (ii) The
- The gross sum of £3,306 (THREE THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED AND SIX POUNDS) in accordance with section 24(1) of the ERA.30 (iii) The
- ,35 provided that if it does so, the
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr D McCann began working for Redpath Construction Limited as a Project Manager on 26 August 2019. His contract said the company incentive scheme was not a contractual bonus scheme and that payment was discretionary. In June 2022 Mr Sloan emailed him a bonus calculation stating that he would receive a gross non-retained bonus of £4,906, to be paid in three instalments of £1,600 in June, £1,600 in July and £1,706 in August, and a further gross retention bonus of £1,100 subject to the release and payment of retention monies by the client.
The tribunal found that the project bonus scheme was a non-contractual, discretionary scheme. It accepted that the respondent had varied some of the scheme's terms in practice over time and had told the claimant on 28 June 2022 that he would receive the non-retained bonus on the stated instalment basis. It rejected the respondent's argument that paragraph 8 of the scheme meant no further instalments were payable after resignation, holding that the July and August instalments were not "further bonuses" but instalments of a bonus already notified to the claimant. It also found that, by 7 July 2022, the IRH final account had in fact been agreed and paid, so the bonus event had occurred before the later instalment dates.
On that basis, the tribunal held that the unpaid July and August instalments were wages properly payable within section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and that their non-payment was a series of unlawful deductions. It ordered the respondent to pay the gross sum of £3,306, subject to deduction of any tax and employee National Insurance required by law and remittance of those deductions to HMRC with written evidence to the claimant. The separate claim for breach of contract in relation to the retention bonus was not determined on its merits because the tribunal held that it lacked jurisdiction: the bonus was contingent on future release of retention funds and was not due, or outstanding, when employment ended on 12 August 2022.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held that the second and third instalments of the non-retained bonus, totalling £3,306 gross, were properly payable wages and that non-payment in July and August 2022 amounted to unlawful deductions. | Upheld | — | £3,306 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction under Article 3 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (Scotland) Order 1994 because the retention bonus was contingent on a future event and did not arise or remain outstanding on termination. | Other | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,306
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
7 references- balance of probabilities
- Miller v Minister of Pensions
- Farrell Matthews and Weir v Hansen
- Delaney v Staples
- Peninsula Business Services Ltd v Sweeney
- Harlow v Artemis International Corporation Ltd
- contra proferentem
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.