Case 4105220/2016 · Employment Tribunal
(sitting alone) Mr Brian Christie v Meat Limited T/a McIntosh Donald — 2017
- Case reference
- 4105220/2016
- Decision date
- 2 May 2017
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge I McFatridge
- Venue
- Aberdeen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
(sitting alone) Mr Brian Christie
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr Brian Christie, had long service with the respondents and was working as Lairage Supervisor when an unannounced Tesco audit took place on 3 August 2016. CCTV showed a lairage operator, Mr Spence, handling a sheep in a way the tribunal regarded as a breach of animal welfare standards. The claimant was positioned a short distance away, looking towards the area, and the respondents treated his failure to intervene as misconduct. He was suspended, investigated, dismissed without notice, and his appeal was rejected.
The tribunal applied section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the Burchell approach. It accepted that Mr Napier and Mr Anderson genuinely believed the claimant ought to have seen what was happening but had not done so, and it found that the investigation based on the CCTV was within the range of reasonable responses. It did not accept Mr McNaughton's later view that the claimant must have seen the incident and chosen to do nothing. The tribunal also noted concerns about the missing or incomplete minutes from the investigation, disciplinary and appeal meetings, and said those procedural issues added to its unease, although it did not make a separate finding of procedural unfairness.
On the merits, the tribunal held that the claimant's conduct was at most a momentary lack of attention and that no reasonable employer would dismiss in those circumstances. It also took account of the comparison with Mr Baillie, who had intervened in the later incident only after auditors drew it to his attention, although that comparison was not decisive. The unfair dismissal claim therefore succeeded, and the wrongful dismissal / notice pay claim also succeeded because the respondents were not entitled to summarily dismiss the claimant for repudiatory breach. The tribunal awarded a basic award of £10,418.25 after a 25% reduction for contribution, a compensatory award of £24,602.78 after the same reduction, and a total unfair dismissal monetary award of £35,021.03 with a prescribed element of £2,972.69 covering 4 February to 4 April 2017. It also awarded £6,688.56 for 12 weeks' notice pay and £1,200 reimbursement of tribunal fees, bringing the total ordered sum to £42,909.59.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissal held unfair under s.98(4) ERA 1996; tribunal found the claimant's failure amounted to momentary inattention rather than gross misconduct. The basic and compensatory awards were each reduced by 25% for contribution. | Upheld | — | £35,021 |
| Breach of contract | Award for 12 weeks' notice pay. The judgment also described this issue as wrongful dismissal at common law. | Upheld | — | £6,689 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £42,910
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £10,418
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £24,603
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
10 references- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- s.98(2)(b) ERA 1996
- Burchell test
- Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd v Hitt
- West Midlands Co-operative v Tipton
- Weston Recovery Services v Fisher
- Wincanton PLC v Atkinson & Marrison
- Laws v London Chronicle
- s.122(2) ERA 1996
- s.123(6) 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.