Case 4105461/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Tinnion Mr. Darren Amers v ,15 Advocate DR Collin & Son. Ltd. — 2021
- Case reference
- 4105461/2020
- Decision date
- 23 September 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mr. A.
- Venue
- Edinburgh
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Tinnion Mr. Darren Amers
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Darren Amers was employed by DR Collin & Son Ltd from 1 May 2017 and was promoted in 2019 to Cold Store Manager at Site #4. After a workplace accident in 2018 and a later personal injury claim, the tribunal found that by July 2020 the parties were dealing with the impact of the Covid-19 downturn on the respondent's cold store business. On 9 July 2020 the respondent decided to terminate his post, and on 10 July 2020 he was told there was no longer a position for him in the Cold Store and was offered a lower-paid role at Site #2.
The tribunal held that Mr Amers was dismissed by the respondent, with the dismissal taking effect on 14 July 2020 when he said he would not accept the alternative Site #2 role. It rejected the respondent's case that he had ended his own employment, and found that the sole reason for dismissal was genuine redundancy. The tribunal rejected Mr Amers' contention that the workplace accident, the personal injury claim, or complaints about toilet facilities and pigeon droppings were the reason for dismissal.
The unfair dismissal claim succeeded because the respondent gave no prior warning or consultation, did not establish a redundancy pool or apply selection criteria, and did not offer any appeal. The tribunal found the respondent acted unfairly and outside the band of reasonable responses, and it also found there was a 50% chance Mr Amers would have been fairly dismissed even if a fair redundancy procedure had been followed. The ACAS uplift was refused because the tribunal held the disciplinary and grievance code did not apply to the redundancy situation.
The wrongful dismissal claim also succeeded. The tribunal found that Mr Amers was entitled to three weeks' notice, that no notice was given, and that no notice pay was paid. In the schedule, the tribunal awarded a basic award of £2,163.46 and a compensatory award of £10,856.54 for unfair dismissal, a wrongful dismissal award of £1,298.76, and applied a £3,884.40 credit for Job Seekers Allowance, producing a total compensation figure of £10,434.36.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held the dismissal was unfair and outwith the range of reasonable responses because there was no prior consultation, no redundancy pool or selection criteria, and no appeal. The unfair dismissal schedule allowed a basic award of £2,163.46 and a compensatory award of £10,856.54 before the overall credit for benefits. | Upheld | — | £13,020 |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed without notice and had a contractual and statutory entitlement to three weeks' notice. The schedule awarded £1,298.76 for this claim, based on weekly net pay plus the car benefit-in-kind and pension contribution values. | Upheld | — | £1,299 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £10,434
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £2,163
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £10,857
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
9 references- Chandhok v Tirkey
- Remploy Ltd v Abbott
- Martin v Glynwed Distribution Ltd
- Devaney v DNT Distribution Co. Ltd
- s.139(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Abernethy v Mott, Hay & Anderson
- Moon v Homeworthy Furniture (Northern) Ltd
- Williams v Compair Maxam
- range of reasonable responses
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.