Case 4107188/2019 · Employment Tribunal
f- W / l O 2. EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Number: 4107188/2019 Held in Glasgow on October 2019 Employment Judge: J D Young v Mr Gary Davidson Dunskey Sporting Club Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 4107188/2019
- Decision date
- 14 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge J Young Date
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
f- W / l O 2. EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Number: 4107188/2019 Held in Glasgow on October 2019 Employment Judge: J D Young
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was employed as an underkeeper from 1 April 2014, with continuous service treated as running from that date by virtue of TUPE. Friction developed with the head gamekeeper in January 2019, the claimant raised a grievance, and the respondent dismissed him by letter of 28 February 2019 with immediate effect and without notice. No disciplinary hearing was held, no appeal hearing was held, and the respondent did not answer the claimant's request, sent through Citizens Advice, for written reasons for dismissal.
The tribunal upheld the claim under s.92 ERA 1996 and awarded two weeks' gross pay of £715 for the failure to provide written reasons. It also upheld unfair dismissal under s.98 ERA 1996. Because the respondent gave no explanation for dismissal, the tribunal said it could not make any positive finding as to the reason, and in any event there was no evidence of a fair procedure. The tribunal referred to the ACAS Code of Practice on disciplinary procedures and, because there had been no proper process, increased the compensatory award by 20% under s.207A TULR(C)A.
For remedy on the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal calculated a basic award of £1,432 using the claimant's age, weekly pay of £358 and four complete years of service. The compensatory award was calculated from two weeks' loss before new employment, future loss over 18 months, removal costs for leaving tied accommodation, and loss of statutory protection, producing £7,695 before uplift and £9,234 after the 20% uplift. The tribunal also found the claimant entitled to holiday pay of £1,246 for untaken leave, applying Working Time authorities including Max-Plank v Shimizu, because there was no evidence that the employer had encouraged or required him to take leave.
Under the tribunal's extension of jurisdiction, it awarded £178 for unreimbursed expenses connected with the employment, described as the firearms certificate renewal and a loaders course. It did not make any award for gratuities, because those were said to be outside the respondent's control. The total awarded was £12,805.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Award under s.92 ERA 1996 for failure to provide written reasons for dismissal after request and reminder. | Upheld | — | £715 |
| Unfair dismissal | Found unfair under s.98 ERA 1996 because the respondent gave no reason and no disciplinary procedure was followed; the award comprised a basic award of £1,432 and a compensatory award of £9,234, including a 20% uplift for failure to follow the ACAS Code. | Upheld | — | £10,666 |
| Holiday pay | Award for accrued but untaken holiday at termination; the tribunal held the respondent had not sufficiently encouraged or required leave to be taken, so 23 days from 2018 carried over and 5 days accrued in 2019 were payable. | Upheld | — | £1,246 |
| Breach of contract | Award for unreimbursed expenses for the firearms certificate renewal and a loaders course under the Scotland extension of jurisdiction. The reasons contain a minor inconsistency over the firearms fee amount, but the award total is £178. | Upheld | — | £178 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £12,805
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £1,432
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £9,234
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
6 references- s.92 ERA 1996
- s.98 ERA 1996
- ACAS Code of Practice on disciplinary procedures
- s.207A TULR(C)A
- Max-Plank v Shimizu C-684/16
- s.123(2)(a) 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.