Case 4107944/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Members: Miss E Coyle Mr R Taggart Paul McWhir v John Miller — 2021
- Case reference
- 4107944/2020
- Decision date
- 31 August 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge J Young Tribunal
- Panel members
- Miss E Coyle, Mr R Taggart
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Members: Miss E Coyle Mr R Taggart Paul McWhir
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant had worked a 4-on-4-off shift pattern in the respondent's tanker division. On 7 October 2020 he sought time off because his son's hospital discharge had been delayed and he needed to care for his daughter after the pre-arranged childcare arrangement broke down. The tribunal found that, at around 2 pm on that day, he had told the respondent enough about the circumstances to engage s57A ERA 1996. It also found that requiring him to take annual leave or make up the time on another shift was not compliant with that right at that stage.
The tribunal accepted that the claimant resigned because of what happened on 7/8 October 2020, but it held that the respondent's conduct did not amount to a constructive dismissal. Applying Western Excavating and Malik, it found no significant repudiatory breach going to the root of the contract and no conduct calculated or likely to destroy trust and confidence. The respondent had a wider management reason for refusing ad hoc shift swaps, it had tried to offer alternatives, there was no threat of discipline or dismissal, and the claimant could have raised a grievance. The unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed.
The separate wages claim succeeded. The respondent had deducted £496.40 from the claimant's final salary for training costs linked to ADR/CPC courses. The tribunal held that the training fee agreements, which said the respondent would 'look to recover' the costs on a sliding scale, did not amount to authority for a deduction from wages under s13 ERA 1996. The holiday pay issue had been resolved before the hearing, and a separate overdeduction of £628.07 for holiday pay was repaid on 18 January 2021.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The complaint was pleaded as unfair, including constructive, dismissal arising from the refusal of time off on 7 October 2020. The tribunal held that the respondent did not commit a repudiatory breach or destroy mutual trust and confidence, so the dismissal claim failed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The respondent deducted £496.40 from the claimant's final pay for ADR/CPC training fees. The tribunal held the training fee letters did not authorise a deduction from wages within s13 ERA 1996. | Upheld | — | £496 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £496
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
7 references- s95(1) ERA 1996
- Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp
- Malik v Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA
- s57A ERA 1996
- Gomez v Topclass Investments Limited
- Morancie v PVC Zendo
- s13 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.