Case 4109009/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr F MacIntyre v Represented by:15 Mr Douglas Jaap, Solicitor GEO Amey Pecs Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 4109009/2021
- Decision date
- 22 July 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Campbell
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr F MacIntyre
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr F MacIntyre was employed by Geo Amey Pecs Ltd from 1 March 2005 until he resigned on 27 November 2020. He was latterly a Regional Manager overseeing the prisoner transport contract in parts of Scotland. After a Sheriff Principal complained in October 2019 about dock cover at Airdrie sheriff court, the claimant was required to gather daily staffing information and provide weekly reports, and in 2020 he was also dealing with personal stress and anxiety and the respondent's investigation of his handling of an alleged assault incident at Hamilton sheriff court.
The tribunal found that the respondent breached the contract by withholding the claimant's salary for November 2020. It found no contractual basis for stopping pay on the ground stated in the 25 November 2020 email, namely that he had failed to attend occupational health appointments, because he had not agreed to those appointments being arranged and there was no evidence of any entitlement to withhold wages in those circumstances. The tribunal also found a separate breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence arising from the repeated requests for another occupational health consultation when that was premature, the accusation that he had failed to attend appointments, the threat to stop pay, and the actual stoppage of pay with little notice.
The claimant resigned with immediate effect on 27 November 2020. The tribunal held that he resigned promptly in response to the breaches, so he was constructively dismissed and the dismissal was unfair under section 98 ERA 1996. The respondent did not appear, lodged no ET3, and produced no evidence to establish a fair reason or reasonable response. The tribunal awarded £2,022.20 damages for the unpaid November salary, a basic award of £8,070, and a compensatory award of £3,185.06 made up of £2,885.06 post-termination losses and £300 for loss of employment rights, giving £11,255.06 for the unfair dismissal claim and £13,277.26 overall.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found a breach of contract in the non-payment of the claimant's salary for November 2020 and awarded damages for the net unpaid salary. | Upheld | — | £2,022 |
| Unfair dismissal | The claimant was found to have been constructively and unfairly dismissed under section 94 ERA 1996; the dismissal award comprised a basic award of £8,070 and a compensatory award of £3,185.06, including £300 for loss of employment rights. | Upheld | — | £11,255 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £13,277
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £8,070
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £3,185
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
5 references- s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996
- s.98(1), (2) and (4) ERA 1996
- Malik v Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA [1998] AC 20
- Industrial Rubber Products v Gillon [1977] IRLR 389
- United Bank Ltd v Akhtar [1989] IRLR 507
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.