Case 4109415/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Calder v William Calder — 2021
- Case reference
- 4109415/2021
- Decision date
- 6 October 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Sutherland Linsey
- Venue
- Edinburgh
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Calder
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that there was no contract of employment for the year ending 5 April 2014 because there was no mutuality of obligation, little control over when, how or where the work was done, and no remuneration for that year. Employment therefore counted from 6 April 2014, when the Respondent accepted the Claimant was employed, and continued until the termination found by the tribunal. The Claimant had worked in the family plumbing business doing bookkeeping and administration, and was on furlough from April 2020 until her employment ended.
On dismissal, the tribunal found that the Claimant was not dismissed on 15 February 2021 and did not resign on 16 February 2021. It found that the Respondent dismissed her on 17 February 2021 by reason of the breakdown in their personal relationship, which was capable of amounting to some other substantial reason under section 98(1)(b) ERA 1996. The dismissal was nevertheless unfair under section 98(4) because no meeting was held with the Claimant and no alternative arrangements were discussed before the decision to end employment.
The tribunal awarded unpaid wages of £408 gross for 1 February 2021 to 17 February 2021, notice pay of £1,010.76 gross, and holiday pay of £808.61 gross. It also made a basic award of £1,516.14, calculated by reference to six years' service and the gross weekly pay of £168.46. No compensatory award was made because the tribunal considered that, had there been a meeting rather than a summary dismissal, the employment was likely to have ended by mutual agreement during the notice period, and it also made no award for loss of statutory rights.
On the written statement issue, the tribunal found that the Claimant had not been provided with a written statement of employment particulars. It held, however, that there were exceptional circumstances making a section 38 Employment Act 2002 award unjust or inequitable, so no further payment was made on that head. The tribunal also recorded that there was no monetary award under the recoupment regulations.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed on 17 February 2021 for breakdown in the personal relationship; the dismissal was found unfair because no meeting or discussion of alternatives took place. Basic award only. | Upheld | — | £1,516 |
| Breach of contract | Statutory notice pay under section 86 ERA 1996. | Upheld | — | £1,011 |
| Holiday pay | Accrued but untaken holiday pay for 4.8 weeks at termination. | Upheld | — | £809 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Wages due for 1 February 2021 to 17 February 2021. | Upheld | — | £408 |
| Other | Failure to provide a written statement of employment particulars; the tribunal held there were exceptional circumstances making a section 38 award unjust or inequitable, so no additional award was made. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,744
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £1,516
- statutory, unfair dismissal
Legal tests applied
17 references- Ready Mixed Concrete (South East Ltd) v Minister of Pensions and National Insurance
- s.212 ERA 1996
- Abernethy v Mott, Hay and Anderson
- s.86 ERA 1996
- s.94 ERA 1996
- s.98(1)(b) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- range of reasonable responses
- Iceland Frozen Foods Ltd v Jones
- Foley v Post Office; Midland Bank plc v Madden
- Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd
- Phoenix House Ltd v Stockman
- s.123(1) ERA 1996
- s.123(6) ERA 1996
- Regulations 13, 13A and 14 WTR 1998
- s.1 ERA 1996
- s.38 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.