Case 4109291/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Member L Brown Tribunal Member W Muir Mr B Hewitson v Nash Asset Holdings Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 4109291/2021
- Decision date
- 31 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge A Jones Tribunal
- Panel members
- L Brown, W Muir
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Member L Brown Tribunal Member W Muir Mr B Hewitson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant worked for the respondent from 5 January 2021 until his dismissal on 9 March 2021 as a driver/operative at Dunbar Cement Works. The tribunal found that he was subjected to unwanted conduct at work, including swearing, insults and abusive language by Mr Flint, Mr Beverley and Mr Orton, and that the respondent tolerated a culture in which such language was used. However, although the respondent knew that the claimant had anxiety, the tribunal found no evidence that the conduct was related to his disability or that his colleagues were aware of it, so the disability harassment claim failed.
The tribunal upheld the unlawful deduction from wages claim. It found that the respondent deducted five hours pay in relation to an allegation that the claimant had not cleaned a vehicle, and also deducted four hours pay where the claimant had been told he would be paid for eight hours for four hours' work plus the call-out fee. The tribunal held that the claimant was contractually entitled to be paid for those hours and awarded £107.60 gross.
On whistleblowing, the tribunal found that the claimant made a qualifying disclosure when he told managers at the respondent's client, Tarmac, that there was a bullying culture within the respondent's organisation. It accepted that the disclosure was in the public interest and that the claimant reasonably believed the information was true, and it also found that the disclosure had previously been made to the respondent in terms of section 43G ERA 1996. The tribunal rejected the respondent's explanation that the dismissal was for performance reasons, finding that there had been no prior performance concerns or genuine performance review, and held that the reason or principal reason for dismissal was the protected disclosure. It therefore found automatic unfair dismissal under section 103A ERA 1996.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to provide the claimant with a written statement of terms and conditions of employment as required by section 1 ERA 1996. Applying section 38(3) of the Employment Act 2002, it awarded the minimum two weeks' pay, assessed at £1,080 gross. The tribunal's total award was £3,831.64 gross, comprising £107.60 for unlawful deductions, £2,644.04 for loss of earnings after dismissal, and £1,080 for the statement-of-terms award.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | The tribunal accepted that the claimant was subjected to unwanted swearing, insults and hostile conduct which created an intimidating and offensive environment, but found no evidence that the conduct was related to his disability or that his colleagues knew about his anxiety. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found two unlawful deductions on 26 February 2021: 5 hours deducted for alleged failure to keep a vehicle clean and 4 hours deducted where the claimant was contractually entitled to 8 hours for a 4-hour call-out, with a total award of £107.60 gross. | Upheld | — | £108 |
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal found that the claimant made a protected disclosure when he told Tarmac managers that there was a bullying culture within the respondent's operations, and that the reason or principal reason for dismissal was that disclosure; the award was for loss of earnings to the start of new employment. | Upheld | — | £2,644 |
| Other | The tribunal found that the respondent failed to provide a written statement of terms and conditions of employment under section 1 ERA 1996 and awarded two weeks' pay under section 38(3) Employment Act 2002. | Upheld | — | £1,080 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,832
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £2,644
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
9 references- s.26 Equality Act 2010
- s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.43A-G Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.43B Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.43G Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.103A Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.1 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.38(3) Employment Act 2002
- Schedule 5 Employment Act 2002
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.