Case 4121685/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Taylor v Represented by: F Lefevre - Solicitor Dick Flemming Communications Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 4121685/2018
- Decision date
- 27 March 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Sutherland Nicola
- Venue
- Aberdeen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Taylor
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningNicola Taylor was employed as a Financial Controller and had access to confidential financial information. The tribunal found that the respondent dismissed her for conduct after she discussed the company's bank balance and dividend payments with the office manager, and after she BCC'd her into a sensitive email. It held that the principal reason for dismissal was disclosure of confidential financial information, that the claimant had breached the confidentiality agreement and the first employee handbook's gross misconduct provision, and that the email issue was not the sole basis for dismissal.
The tribunal accepted the managing director's evidence that the office manager was not the claimant's line manager for financial matters and did not have access to the same financial information. It found there was a reasonable basis for the belief that the claimant had disclosed confidential material inappropriately, including because she prefaced the conversation with words to the effect of "between you and me". It also found that the respondent carried out a reasonable investigation and genuinely believed the claimant had committed misconduct.
On procedure, the tribunal held that the disciplinary process and appeal were within the range of reasonable responses. It accepted the respondent's decision to use the first employee handbook, and found it was not unreasonable to appoint an external Peninsula consultant to hear the appeal, even though the consultant later made recommendations rather than a final decision. The tribunal rejected the claimant's arguments about predetermination, her personal circumstances, and alleged procedural unfairness, and concluded that the dismissal was fair.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed for conduct and held that the dismissal was fair under s.98(4) ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- s.98(1) ERA 1996
- s.98(2)(b) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- British Home Stores Ltd v Burchell
- Iceland Frozen Foods Ltd v Jones
- Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd
- ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures
- s.207 TULRCA 1992
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.