Case 4106669/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Iona McNab v Tayside Contracts — 2023
- Case reference
- 4106669/2022
- Decision date
- 16 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge A Kemp
- Venue
- Dundee
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Iona McNab
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant resigned after working as a catering assistant for the respondent and alleged that she had been forced into an untenable position, including by an alleged incident on 8 February 2022 in which she said another employee physically shoved her. The Tribunal considered whether her resignation amounted to a dismissal under section 95(1)(c) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The Tribunal found that the claimant had not proved the alleged 8 February 2022 pushing incident or that she had reported such an allegation at the time. It preferred the respondent witnesses' evidence on disputed matters and noted that the contemporaneous record referred only to communication concerns. The claimant had not raised a formal grievance, had chosen to return to the workplace where the other employee worked, and had continued working for more than six months after the alleged incident.
The Tribunal concluded that there was no material breach of contract by the respondent and, in any event, the claimant had not resigned in response to such a breach. It found that the claimant had not established a dismissal in law, so the constructive unfair dismissal claim was dismissed and remedy did not arise.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The claim was described as constructive unfair dismissal. The Tribunal held that the claimant had not established that her resignation was in law a dismissal under section 95(1)(c) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £0
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
16 references- section 95(1)(c) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Western Excavating Ltd v Sharp
- Malik v BCCI SA
- Baldwin v Brighton and Hove City Council
- Leeds Dental Team Ltd v Rose
- Wright v North Lanarkshire Council
- Meikle v Nottinghamshire Council
- Kaur v Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust
- WE Cox Toner (International) Ltd v Crook
- Cantor Fitzgerald International v Bird
- Savoia v Chiltern Herb Farms Ltd
- sections 119 and 122 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 123 Employment Rights Act 1996
- ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures
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.