Case 4106920/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Deeside Marine Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 4106920/2019
- Decision date
- 11 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Robison Claimant
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Jamie Rennie worked for Deeside Marine Limited as a labourer from 28 September 2015 until his dismissal on 29 January 2019. The disciplinary process concerned three matters: leaving work early on 31 December 2018, alleged failure to follow sickness absence reporting procedures, and running the lathes with low oil in December 2018. The tribunal recorded that the claimant accepted he was at fault about the oil levels, and that he had left early, but it also accepted that the words used by Mr Kerr on 31 December were ambiguous.
Applying section 98 ERA 1996 and the Burchell test, the tribunal found that the respondent had a genuine belief in misconduct and that the investigation was sufficiently reasonable for a small employer. It nevertheless held that dismissal was outside the range of reasonable responses. The 31 December matter had already been dealt with by a verbal or written warning, the oil incident had been addressed on 4 December and was not escalated at the time, and the tribunal did not accept that the two incidents together justified summary dismissal.
The tribunal also found procedural unfairness. Mr Gidney investigated the matter and then chaired the disciplinary hearing after concluding that the claimant had lied, while Mrs Temke took part in the earlier process and then heard the appeal. The tribunal was not satisfied that the appeal was conducted by someone with a genuinely fresh mind, and it noted that the appeal focussed heavily on whether there was new evidence. The sickness absence ground was only partly accepted on appeal: the appeal decision accepted that the handbook procedure had not previously been fully adhered to and that the claimant was absent when the instruction changed, but the dismissal was not overturned.
On remedy, the tribunal awarded a basic award of £752, a compensatory award of £8,190 for 26 weeks' loss at £315 net per week, and £500 for loss of statutory rights, making a total award of £9,442. It did not make a contributory fault reduction or a Polkey reduction. The prescribed element was £8,190 for the period from 29 January 2019 to 30 July 2019, and recoupment applied.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records the unfair dismissal finding and the associated monetary award. The introduction notes that the claim was originally presented with breach of contract and arrears of pay, but the extracted reasons do not record a separate determination on those heads. | Upheld | — | £9,442 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £9,442
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £752
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £8,190
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
11 references- s.98(1) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- British Homes Stores Ltd v Burchell
- Burchell test
- range of reasonable responses
- s.122(2) ERA 1996
- s.123 ERA 1996
- Polkey reduction
- s.207A TULRA 1992
- Iceland Frozen Foods Ltd v Jones
- Sainsbury v Hitt
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.