Case 4113760/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Langan v Quarriers — 2022
- Case reference
- 4113760/2021
- Decision date
- 25 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge J McCluskey
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Langan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr G Langan was employed by Quarriers as a support worker from 12 May 2012 until his dismissal on 20 September 2021. The tribunal found that, after social media posts in November 2020 and a series of emails in June to August 2021, the claimant made repeated criticisms of Quarriers, its management, and the handling of the 2018 incident involving the service user PWS. The respondent invited him to a meeting on 16 September 2021 to explore whether the employment relationship had irretrievably broken down, and he was dismissed for some other substantial reason after that meeting.
The tribunal accepted that the reason for dismissal was an irretrievable breakdown in the employment relationship and held that this was a potentially fair reason under section 98(1)(b) ERA. It relied on the dismissal letter and the claimant's communications and conduct, including his continued criticism of management, his refusal to move on from the 2018 incident, and his statement in the meeting that he was not changing the way he was. The tribunal found that Ms Hattie genuinely and reasonably believed the relationship had broken down and that the claimant had not given assurances that he could work in partnership with Quarriers.
On fairness, the tribunal held that Quarriers had taken reasonable steps to try to repair the relationship before dismissing the claimant. It had held discussions, provided explanations and reassurances about the 2018 incident, and given him an opportunity to attend the 16 September 2021 meeting and later an appeal hearing on 18 October 2021. The tribunal found that alternatives to dismissal were considered, including allowing the claimant to return to work, but that Ms Hattie reasonably concluded there was no realistic prospect of restoring trust and confidence.
The tribunal therefore concluded that the dismissal fell within the band of reasonable responses open to a reasonable employer and dismissed the unfair dismissal complaint. No monetary award was made because the claim failed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the respondent dismissed the claimant for some other substantial reason, namely an irretrievable breakdown in the employment relationship, and that the dismissal was fair under section 98 ERA. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
11 references- section 94 ERA 1996
- section 98 ERA
- section 98(1)(b) ERA
- section 98(4) ERA
- Abernethy v Mott, Hay and Anderson
- Mercia Rubber Mouldings Ltd v Lingwood
- Willow Oak Developments Ltd v Silverwood
- Gilham v Kent County Council (No 2)
- Boys and Girls Welfare Society v McDonald
- Turner v Vestric Ltd
- Iceland Frozen Foods Ltd v Jones
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.