Case 4121035/2018 · Employment Tribunal
A Kemp Members: Mr K Culloch Mr J R Terry Mr A Bowie v Alltec Construction Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 4121035/2018
- Decision date
- 3 April 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mr
- Venue
- Dundee
- Panel members
- Mr K Culloch, Mr J R Terry
Parties
2 namedClaimant
A Kemp Members: Mr K Culloch Mr J R Terry Mr A Bowie
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Allan Bowie was employed by Alltec Construction Ltd as a joiner from 29 August 2014 and was dismissed summarily on 22 May 2018 after an incident at the Bosch site on 4 May 2018. The tribunal found that Mr Graham Wallace and Mr Graeme Mackintosh reasonably believed the claimant had been aggressive toward Mr Greg Robins, had called him a liar and a bully, and had refused a reasonable instruction to attend the head office. Applying section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the Burchell approach, it held that the reason for dismissal was conduct and that dismissal fell within the band of reasonable responses.
On procedure, the tribunal accepted that the investigation and disciplinary process were generally reasonable, although the minutes could have been fuller and signed. It considered two points in detail: the second disciplinary invitation was sent by email on 17 May 2018, which the claimant saw on 20 May 2018 but did not attend or contact the respondent to explain; and the claimant's email of 6 May 2018 about pressure at work and age-related comments was in substance a grievance, but the respondent did not investigate it separately. The tribunal held that these matters did not make the dismissal unfair in the statutory sense, particularly because the claimant did not give a full account of the incident when given opportunities on 7, 16 and 21 May and at the appeal on 4 June 2018.
On age discrimination, the tribunal found no sufficient prima facie case of direct discrimination under section 13 of the Equality Act 2010 and no harassment under section 26. It preferred the respondents' evidence that the 7 February 2018 meeting contained no age reference, rejected the claimant's allegation of an age-related remark on 4 May 2018, and found no adequate evidence that the dismissal decision-makers were influenced by age. Because all claims failed, the tribunal recorded that remedy was not applicable.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissal was found to be for conduct following the 4 May 2018 site incident and the claimant's refusal to attend the head office; the tribunal held the respondent had a reasonable belief formed on a reasonable investigation and that dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Age discrimination | The tribunal rejected direct age discrimination under section 13 of the Equality Act 2010, finding no sufficient prima facie case and no adequate evidence that age affected the dismissal, pay, or other matters raised. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Harassment | The alternative age-harassment case under section 26 of the Equality Act 2010 was rejected; the tribunal found the allegations lacked detail and contemporaneous complaint, and that any perceived effect would not have met the statutory test. | Dismissed | Age | — |
Legal tests applied
12 references- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- Burchell test
- Iceland Frozen Foods Ltd v Jones
- Taylor v OCS Group Ltd
- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.26 Equality Act 2010
- s.136 Equality Act 2010
- Pemberton v Inwood
- Richmond Pharmacology v Dhaliwal
- Reilly v Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council
- Amnesty International v Ahmed
- Shamoon v Chief Constable of the RUC
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.