Case 4107973/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Member F Paton Tribunal Member A Grant William Cunningham v Tilbury Douglas Construction Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 4107973/2020
- Decision date
- 12 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Sutherland Tribunal
- Venue
- Edinburgh
- Panel members
- F Paton, A Grant
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Member F Paton Tribunal Member A Grant William Cunningham
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the outset, the first claimant's combined complaint for notice pay and holiday pay was withdrawn after he said he had been paid additional monies, so no award was made on that issue. The tribunal then dealt with three unfair dismissal claims arising from a redundancy exercise in the respondent's construction business.
For the first claimant, the tribunal held that the unfair dismissal claim was presented outside the three-month time limit, extended by ACAS Early Conciliation, and that it was reasonably practicable for him to have presented it in time. It found he knew of the time limit, had attended Citizens' Advice, was not wholly occupied by post-dismissal correspondence, and did not take reasonable steps to obtain assistance with his claim form. The tribunal also said that, even if the claim had been in time, it would have failed on the merits because DS was retained only after additional work arose while DS was on holiday and in quarantine, and the first claimant said he did not want to return because he had secured other work.
The second and third claimants' unfair dismissal claims were dismissed. The tribunal accepted that there was a redundancy situation and that the respondent used objective selection criteria in a process run by RK, SB and CS with HR support while line managers were unavailable on furlough. For the second claimant, the tribunal found it was reasonable for CS to score him using a recent appraisal and that the respondent was not obliged to check archives in greater detail for one employee when that would have to be done for all staff; length of service was excluded from the criteria and he declined the scoring appeal. For the third claimant, the tribunal found the selection pool properly included JM, the scoring on qualifications, current work performance and suitability for available work was within the range of reasonable responses, and there were no overt signs of unfairness or bias. No compensation or other monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because it was presented outside the three-month time limit and the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present it in time. The tribunal also said that, even if it had been in time, it would have failed on the merits because DS was retained only after additional work arose while DS was on holiday and in quarantine, and the first claimant said he did not want to return because he had secured alternative employment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Part of the first claimant's combined notice pay and holiday pay complaint; withdrawn after he said he had been paid additional monies in satisfaction of it. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Part of the first claimant's combined notice pay and holiday pay complaint; withdrawn after he said he had been paid additional monies in satisfaction of it. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed on the merits. The tribunal held that it was reasonable for CS to score the claimant using a recent appraisal when the line managers were unavailable on furlough, that the respondent was not required to check archives in greater detail for one employee when that would have to be done for all staff, and that length of service was excluded from the selection criteria. The claimant declined the scoring appeal. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed on the merits. The tribunal held that the respondent's selection pool properly included JM, that the scoring on qualifications, current work performance and suitability for available work was within the range of reasonable responses, and that there were no overt signs of unfairness or bias. |
Legal tests applied
8 references- Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances Ltd
- s.94 ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- Iceland Frozen Foods Ltd v Jones
- Foley v Post Office; Midland Bank plc v Madden
- Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd
- Williams and ors v Compare Maxam Ltd
- British Aerospace plc v Green and ors
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.