Case 4112407/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Cannon v Re-Tek UK Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 4112407/2021
- Decision date
- 27 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Mackay
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Cannon
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr A Cannon had been employed by Re-Tek UK Ltd from 11 October 2011 as Warehouse Manager. The tribunal found that before the COVID-19 shutdown he was a highly performing employee who had received exceptional bonuses in 2018 and 2019, together with very positive appraisals, and that he had also been told on more than one occasion that he would receive a 5% shareholding. After the workplace closure in March 2020, the tribunal found that the relationship with Mr Culligan changed materially, with a reduction in day-to-day communication and a series of decisions taken without consulting the claimant on staffing, pay, bonuses, appraisal arrangements and management responsibility.
Applying the constructive dismissal authorities cited in the judgment, including Western Excavating, Malik, Lewis, Omilaju and Kaur, the tribunal held that the respondent’s conduct cumulatively breached the implied term of mutual trust and confidence. The tribunal identified a course of conduct that included the June 2020 staffing decisions, the reduction of pay from 37 hours to 35 hours without consultation, reduced and then withdrawn bonus payments, the introduction and retrospective application of a new appraisal system with low scores not properly explained, the withdrawal of the promised share award, and the removal of the claimant’s line-management responsibility. It found that the final straw was the email from Ms Hunter on 29 July 2021, which contained inaccurate matters and an unqualified refutation of the claimant’s complaints.
The tribunal held that the claimant resigned in response to that cumulative breach, that he had not affirmed the contract, and that the dismissal was therefore constructive. It rejected the respondent’s alternative arguments that any dismissal was fair for capability or some other substantial reason, holding that those contentions failed because the underlying breakdown in trust and confidence was caused by the respondent’s own conduct. For remedy, the parties agreed the basic award at £7,340. The tribunal awarded a compensatory award of £4,595.16, made up of £1,595.16 net loss of earnings for 12 months and £3,000 for loss of bonus, and declined to award compensation for the claimed shareholding because any such calculation would have been speculative.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claim was presented as constructive unfair dismissal. The tribunal found the claimant had been constructively dismissed and that the dismissal was unfair. It awarded total compensation of £11,935.16. | Upheld | — | £11,935 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £11,935
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £7,340
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £4,595
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
10 references- s.94 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.95(1)(c) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp
- Malik v Bank of Credit and Commerce International Ltd
- Lewis v Motorworld Garages Ltd
- Omilaju v Waltham Forest London Borough Council
- Nottinghamshire County Council v Meikle
- Kaur v Leeds Teaching Hospital NHS Trust
- s.98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
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.