Case 4122638/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Priestley v Represented by: - see above JD Coaches Scotland Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 4122638/2018
- Decision date
- 28 May 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rory McPherson
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Priestley
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBoth claimants transferred from McGills to JD Coaches on the basis that their MyBus shifts would usually finish early, that they would still receive full daily pay, and that passenger tips on the MyBus service would remain with the driver. The tribunal found that JD Coaches did not provide written particulars of employment, written arrangements about hours or pay frequency, a staff handbook, or itemised pay statements through 2018. When the respondent won the new 343 service, it expected the claimants to work later into the evening on alternate days, but the tribunal found that they were working under protest and had not agreed to the change.
On 11 August 2018 both claimants submitted written grievances about the new arrangements and about the conduct of Mr and Mrs Donnelly. On 13 August 2018, after the grievances were handed to Mr Donnelly, he reacted angrily, told them there would be no more early finishes and that they were off their shifts, and closed the roller gate behind them. The tribunal held that this was a dismissal, not a resignation: there were no unequivocal words of resignation, no reasonable basis for treating their departure as voluntary, and no grievance meeting or appeal was offered in line with the ACAS Code.
The tribunal rejected any basic-award or compensatory deduction for conduct and made no Polkey reduction. It also rejected the respondent's attempt to justify dismissal by reference to Mr Chalmers's 7 August route deviation and the later SPT warning, finding that the respondent had no fair process or written guidance for that issue and did not rely on it at the time. The tribunal made basic awards of £960 for Mr Priestley and £1,440 for Mr Chalmers, and compensatory awards of £3,496.26 and £7,142.63 respectively after a 10% ACAS uplift. The written particulars failure was reflected in the compensation calculations, and each claimant also received £780.24 for notice pay, making the total monetary outcome £14,599.37.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Mr Priestley. The tribunal found he was dismissed on 13 August 2018 after submitting a written grievance and rejected the respondent's case that he resigned. The award comprised a basic award of £960 and a compensatory award of £3,496.26 after a 10% ACAS uplift; the prescribed element was £1,074.43. | Upheld | — | £4,456 |
| Breach of contract | Mr Priestley. Failure to pay 2 weeks' notice pay after dismissal. | Upheld | — | £780 |
| Unfair dismissal | Mr Chalmers. The tribunal found he was dismissed on 13 August 2018 after submitting a written grievance and rejected the respondent's case that he resigned. The award comprised a basic award of £1,440 and a compensatory award of £7,142.63 after a 10% ACAS uplift; the prescribed element was £4,407.30. | Upheld | — | £8,583 |
| Breach of contract | Mr Chalmers. Failure to pay 2 weeks' notice pay after dismissal. | Upheld | — | £780 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £14,599
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £2,400
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £10,639
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
8 references- s.95 ERA 1996 dismissal
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures
- s.122(2) ERA 1996
- s.123(6) ERA 1996
- s.207A TULR(C)A
- Polkey v A E Dayton Services Ltd
- Abrahall v Nottingham City Council
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.