Case 4107855/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr H D Williams v Represented by Ms L Neil Solicitor Scottish Water — 2020
- Case reference
- 4107855/2020
- Decision date
- 9 December 2020
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Robison
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr H D Williams
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dismissed Mr H D Williams's claim for unfair dismissal. It found that the respondent's concerns arose from the claimant's overtime claim for November 2018, including questions about who authorised the overtime, a duplicate entry, telematics information showing the vehicle at home during claimed hours, alleged personal use of the vehicle, and alleged early finishes. After fact-finding and disciplinary hearings, the dismissing officer upheld allegations of false overtime claims, personal use of the vehicle contrary to policy, and leaving work early without authorisation, and dismissed the claimant on 2 April 2019.
The tribunal rejected the claimant's case that dismissal was a pretext for retaliation connected with earlier grievances or hostility from managers. It found that the earlier grievances had been dealt with in 2016 and 2017, that the claimant had not suggested during the disciplinary process that grievance history was the real reason for dismissal, and that Mr Beardmore was not part of any conspiracy. It also rejected complaints about the investigation process, the fact-finding meetings, the minutes, disclosure of documents, and the claim that the telematics evidence made the process unfair. The tribunal found that the respondent held a genuine belief in misconduct on reasonable grounds after a reasonable investigation and that dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses.
The tribunal also dismissed the claim for arrears of pay, pleaded as bonus. It found that the annual out-performance incentive plan did not require payment because the claimant had been dismissed before the payment date, which was in June 2019, and in any event he could not rely on the plan after the contractual breaches found proved. The holiday pay claim was dismissed as well. The claimant sought payment for 11 days' carried-over leave, but the tribunal found no agreement by Mr Campbell to carry over more than five days and no exceptional circumstances to justify the extra leave.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found that the respondent dismissed the claimant for misconduct arising from the November 2018 overtime claim, use of the vehicle for personal purposes, and early finishes without authorisation. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim was pleaded as arrears of pay (bonus). The tribunal found no entitlement to the 2019 bonus because the claimant was dismissed on 2 April 2019 before the payment date and, in any event, he had breached his contract by the conduct found proved. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The claimant sought payment for 11 days' annual leave carry-over. The tribunal found no agreement to carry over more than five days and no exceptional circumstances justifying the additional leave. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- s.98(1) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- Burchell test
- Iceland Frozen Foods range of reasonable responses
- 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.