Case 4109341/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Member Ms V Lockhart Tribunal Member Mr R Dearle Mr M Armstrong v Respondent — 2021
- Case reference
- 4109341/2021
- Decision date
- 1 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brewer Tribunal
- Panel members
- Ms V Lockhart, Mr R Dearle
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Member Ms V Lockhart Tribunal Member Mr R Dearle Mr M Armstrong
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was employed as a scaffolder from 7 August 2010 and, by the time of the events in question, had been working on the Dunlin platform as a long-term ad hoc member of staff. In 2019 he joined the safety committee and began raising concerns about diesel fumes in the living quarters. The tribunal found that his removal from the Dunlin was because he raised those health and safety concerns, and that the later suggestion that he had told a fellow passenger on 14 March 2020 that his wife had tested positive for COVID-19 was not the real reason for his removal.
The tribunal held that the dismissal was automatically unfair under s.100(1)(a) ERA 1996. It found that Fairfield and then the respondent had accepted an allegation that the claimant described as unreasonable and had not properly investigated it. The tribunal also found that the respondent did not genuinely search for alternative employment for him, did not properly challenge the client's NRB decision, and placed him into short-term work on the Sereco Bruce platform even though that was already a dead end because scaffolders there had either been made redundant or were already on notice of redundancy. It also found that there was ongoing work on the Rosetti platform and that the respondent gave no good reason for not placing the claimant there.
In the alternative, the tribunal held that the dismissal was unfair under s.98 ERA 1996 because the respondent had not shown a redundancy situation or a substantial other reason that justified dismissal on the evidence it heard. It ordered reinstatement. On remedy, the tribunal awarded a compensatory award of £16,098.98 made up of loss of sick pay of £6,352.83, loss of wages of £4,746.06, and loss of bonus of £5,000. It also ordered ongoing net weekly loss of £215.73 until reinstatement. The schedule of loss recorded a basic award of £8,070.00, but that was offset by a redundancy payment of £8,070.00, so no basic award formed part of the award. The recoupment appendix recorded the prescribed element as £16,098.89.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal under s.100(1)(a) ERA 1996; the tribunal found the claimant was removed from the Dunlin platform because he raised diesel fume and health and safety concerns, and rejected Fairfield's COVID-text explanation as the real reason. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Alternative ordinary unfair dismissal under s.98 ERA 1996; the tribunal found no genuine redundancy situation or substantial other reason and held that the respondent did not make a proper search for alternative employment or genuinely challenge the client's NRB decision. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £16,099
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £0
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £16,099
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
8 references- s.100(1)(a) ERA 1996
- s.98 ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- s.139(1)(b) ERA 1996
- Safeway Stores plc v Burrell three-stage test
- Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd
- range of reasonable responses
- Royal Mail Group Ltd v Jhuti
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.