Case 4106599/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Cumming v Scottish Leather Group Operations Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 4106599/2024
- Decision date
- 13 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Whitcombe
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Cumming
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr R Cumming, brought a complaint of unfair dismissal and a separate complaint concerning a payment on termination in respect of accrued but untaken paid annual leave. Employment Judge M Whitcombe heard the case in Glasgow on 12 and 13 November 2024. The respondent was Scottish Leather Group Operations Limited, represented by its HR Business Partner, Mrs R Ferris.
The tribunal held that the unfair dismissal complaint was not well-founded. It found that Mr Cumming was fairly dismissed for misconduct. The judgment records no separate remedy because the unfair dismissal complaint was dismissed.
The second complaint, relating to payment on termination for accrued but untaken annual leave, was withdrawn during the hearing. Both complaints were therefore dismissed. Oral reasons were given in the presence of the parties, and neither party requested written reasons.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the dismissal fair for misconduct and held the unfair dismissal complaint was not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The complaint about a payment on termination for accrued but untaken paid annual leave was withdrawn during the hearing. | Withdrawn | — | — |
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.