Case 4122822/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Loading page content.
TopCase 4122822/2018 · Employment Tribunal
ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4122822/2018 Hearing at Edinburgh on and June 20195 Employment Judge: M A Macleod Catherine Cameron
Catherine Cameron worked for CM Optical Ltd from 7 January 2008 as a driver. Her ET1 included unfair dismissal, notice pay and holiday pay, and the claim form had also indicated disability discrimination, but that discrimination claim was withdrawn in January 2019 as having been included in error. At the merits hearing on 3 and 4 June 2019 the respondent conceded that the dismissal on 11 July 2018 was unfair, so the tribunal focused on remedy.
The tribunal awarded a basic award of £3,217.95 and held that a compensatory award was just and equitable under s.123 ERA 1996, but not for the full claimed loss. It found that the claimant remained unfit for work for reasons that were not entirely attributable to the dismissal: she had longstanding hypertension, needed ankle surgery and a period in a plaster cast, and the tribunal concluded that the dismissal had exacerbated an existing condition rather than being the sole or primary cause of her continuing loss. It awarded 25 weeks' pay at £207.81 per week (£5,195.25), less £2,490 received in Employment Support Allowance, leaving £2,705.25, and also awarded £350 for loss of statutory rights. The tribunal said the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Job Seeker's Allowance and Income Support) Regulations 1996 applied to the £2,705.25 monetary award.
The tribunal then found that the respondent had unreasonably failed to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures (2015) in relation to investigation, notice of the allegations, time to prepare, accompaniment and appeal. It applied a 10% uplift, rather than the 25% sought, producing a total unfair dismissal award of £6,900.52. Separately, the parties agreed holiday pay for 1.2 days, calculated at £62.34, so the final sum ordered was £6,962.86.
The separate claim concerning a written statement of terms and conditions under section 1 ERA 1996 failed. The tribunal accepted the respondent's evidence that a contract had been offered at the start of employment and found that the claimant had not proved that the respondent failed to provide a written statement when she began work.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The respondent conceded unfair dismissal at the start of the merits hearing; the tribunal dealt with remedy only and applied a 10% ACAS uplift. | Upheld | — | £6,901 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Holiday pay for 1.2 days of accrued but untaken annual leave was agreed between the parties. | Upheld | — | £62 |
| Other | Claim under section 1 ERA 1996 for a written statement of terms and conditions of employment; the tribunal accepted the respondent's evidence that a contract had been offered and found the claim not proved. | Dismissed | — | — |
The 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.
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.