Case 4106953/2020 · Employment Tribunal
ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4106953/2020 Hearing Held at Edinburgh on and June 2021 Employment Judge: M A Macleod Mr Colin Hutton v Timberbush Tours Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 4106953/2020
- Decision date
- 10 August 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Murdo Macleod
- Venue
- Edinburgh
Parties
2 namedClaimant
ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4106953/2020 Hearing Held at Edinburgh on and June 2021 Employment Judge: M A Macleod Mr Colin Hutton
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Hutton was employed by Timberbush Tours Limited as a Digital Marketing Executive from 7 February 2019. After the impact of Covid-19 on the business, he was placed on furlough, then flexible furlough, and later taken through a redundancy consultation process. He advanced an automatic unfair dismissal complaint under s.100(1)(e) ERA 1996 and also complained about wage deductions in relation to furlough pay and annual leave.
The tribunal dismissed the automatic unfair dismissal claim. It held that Mr Hutton had not shown circumstances of serious and imminent danger when he said he did not want to return to the office by bus, and it found that the respondent was not requiring him to face that particular danger. The tribunal also found that the respondent had a genuine redundancy reason arising from a very significant fall in business, and that the speed of the redundancy process did not demonstrate that dismissal was for the protected reason alleged.
The claim for additional furlough pay also failed. The tribunal found no contractual or legal basis for a right to 100% pay throughout furlough, except for hours actually worked during flexible furlough, and it said the claimant's position on that point was contradictory.
The claim in respect of annual leave succeeded in part. The tribunal found the June leave complaint unclear, accepted that the claimant worked during four days in July when he should have been on leave, and rejected the respondent's proposed offset of an alleged notice overpayment against holiday pay. It awarded £415.47, representing 5.5 days of annual leave at £75.54 net per day.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal under s.100(1)(e) ERA 1996. The tribunal held that the claimant did not prove circumstances of serious and imminent danger and accepted redundancy as the real reason for dismissal. It also noted that any ordinary unfair dismissal claim was not available because he lacked two years' service. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for additional pay during furlough failed. The tribunal found no contractual or legal basis for payment at 100% throughout furlough beyond hours actually worked during flexible furlough. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for annual leave pay succeeded in part. The tribunal awarded £415.47 for 5.5 days of untaken annual leave at the net rate of £75.54 per day and rejected the respondent's proposed set-off against an alleged notice overpayment. | Upheld | — | £415 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £415
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.100(1)(e) ERA 1996
- s.100(2) ERA 1996
- s.44(1)(e) 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.