Case 4106638/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Turner v Allied Vehicles Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 4106638/2024
- Decision date
- 1 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge E Mannion
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Turner
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr J Turner was employed by Allied Vehicles Ltd from 21 January 2019, first as gatehouse security and later as a yard coordinator. The respondent investigated an incident on 29 July 2024 in which CCTV showed Mr Turner in a van with Mr McAuley when fruit was collected and then one box was placed in Mr McAuley's car. Mr Turner was suspended on 7 August 2024, invited to a disciplinary hearing on 12 August, and dismissed summarily on 13 August, with the dismissal confirmed in writing on 14 August 2024.
The tribunal accepted that the respondent held a genuine belief that Mr Turner had been guilty of misconduct, but it held that the dismissal was unfair under section 98 ERA 1996 because the investigation and disciplinary process fell outside the band of reasonable responses. The tribunal found that Mr Turner was not given the CCTV footage in advance, was not provided with witness statements or the material relied on in the investigation report, and was not properly told that the real allegation was dishonest failure to report theft rather than simply witnessing theft. It also found that the respondent did not adequately investigate his explanation that he was on his phone and not paying attention, or whether stopping at cars was unusual in that work context.
On remedy, the tribunal awarded a basic award of £3,000 and an initial compensatory award of £4,486.47, made up of immediate loss, later earnings shortfalls, future loss, loss of uniform bonus, and loss of statutory rights. It rejected the respondent's arguments on contributory conduct and Polkey reduction, finding that Mr Turner was not engaged in blameworthy conduct and that a different outcome might have been reached with proper procedure.
The tribunal then applied an uplift under section 207A(2) TULRCA 1992 for breaches of the Acas Code of Practice on Discipline and Grievance, increasing the compensatory award by 15% to £5,159.44. It also awarded five weeks' notice pay of £3,000, and it dismissed the claim for unpaid holiday pay.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissal for alleged misconduct arising from the claimant's presence when Mr McAuley took fruit; tribunal found the dismissal unfair because the investigation and procedure were outside the band of reasonable responses. | Upheld | — | £8,159 |
| Breach of contract | Notice pay of five weeks' gross pay was awarded after summary dismissal; the judgment did not label this as wrongful dismissal, but this entry reflects the notice-pay element. | Upheld | — | £3,000 |
| Holiday pay | Claim for unpaid holiday/accrued leave did not succeed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £11,159
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £3,000
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £5,159
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
18 references- s.98 ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- Burchell test
- band of reasonable responses
- British Leyland (UK) Ltd v Swift
- Sainsbury's Supermarkets v Hitt
- Shrestha v Genesis Housing Association Ltd
- A v B
- Hussain v Elonex plc
- Polkey / Software 2000 Ltd v Andrews
- contributory conduct
- Steen v ASP Packaging Ltd
- Fyfe v Scientific Furnishings Limited
- Cooper Contracting Ltd v Lindsey
- Acas Code of Practice on Discipline and Grievance
- s.207A(2) TULRCA 1992
- s.119 ERA 1996
- s.123 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.