Case 4107800/2017 · Employment Tribunal
G Woolfson (sitting alone) Mr Mark Finlayson v Ltd (In Liquidation) — 2018
- Case reference
- 4107800/2017
- Decision date
- 14 December 2018
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mr
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
G Woolfson (sitting alone) Mr Mark Finlayson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Finlayson resigned after concerns about company payments, his suspension, the subsequent investigation into alleged poaching of employees, and the respondent's letter treating his concerns as a grievance. The Tribunal found that his email of 7 September 2017 was a protected disclosure because, in context, it disclosed information tending to show possible non-compliance with legal obligations or possible criminal conduct, and was made in the public interest.
The Tribunal found the initial suspension on 8 September 2017 was without proper cause and that statements made to third parties that Mr Finlayson had left the business undermined trust and confidence. However, it found that the later investigation into alleged poaching had a legitimate basis because Mr Finlayson had authorised removal of restrictive covenants from two senior employees' contracts without Mr Kolasinski's knowledge or agreement.
The Tribunal concluded that the letter of 26 September 2017 inviting Mr Finlayson to a grievance meeting was not a final straw, but an appropriate step to address his concerns formally. It therefore held that he was not constructively dismissed, and his unfair dismissal claim, including the section 103A protected disclosure basis, failed. His unauthorised deductions claim was also dismissed because it was no longer pursued.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Mr Finlayson claimed unfair constructive dismissal, including automatic unfair dismissal under section 103A ERA on the basis of a protected disclosure. The Tribunal found he had made a protected disclosure in the email of 7 September 2017, but found he was not constructively dismissed, so the unfair dismissal claim failed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The Tribunal found that the letter of 26 September 2017 was not a final straw and that Mr Finlayson was not constructively dismissed. It also stated that, even on an alternative analysis, the assumed repudiatory breach would not have played a part in his resignation. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Mr Finlayson's unauthorised deductions from wages claim was no longer pursued in submissions and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
12 references- Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp
- London Borough of Waltham Forest v Omilaju
- Malik v Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA
- Kaur v Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust
- s.95 ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- s.103A ERA 1996
- s.43B ERA 1996
- s.43C ERA 1996
- Kilraine v Wandsworth LBC
- Bolton School v Evans
- Chesterton Global v Nurmohamed
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.