Case 8000032/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Fleming v Abbey Metal Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 8000032/2023
- Decision date
- 10 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge C McManus
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Fleming
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Fleming applied for interim relief under section 128 ERA 1996 after alleging that Abbey Metal Ltd dismissed him because he made protected disclosures about health and safety in a handwritten Note dated 12 January 2023, which the tribunal recorded was received by the respondent on 13 January 2023. The respondent said the dismissal was for conduct arising from an altercation about that Note. The hearing was summary only: no oral evidence was heard, the judge relied on the papers and submissions, and videos relied on by the claimant were allowed only for the interim relief assessment, not for findings of fact.
Applying Taplin v C Shippam Ltd, Ministry of Justice v Sarfraz and Al Qasimi v Robinson Sheikh Khalid Bin Saqr Al Qasimi, the tribunal asked whether the claimant had a pretty good chance of proving at the final hearing that the principal reason for dismissal was the making of protected disclosures under section 103A ERA 1996 and that the Note contained qualifying disclosures under section 43B ERA 1996. The judge treated as important that the Note was in writing, was signed by other employees, referred to health and safety issues, was undisputedly received by the respondent's director, and that the conduct relied on by the respondent as the reason for dismissal arose from a discussion about that Note. The tribunal also noted there had been no disciplinary process, no disciplinary hearing, and no appeal hearing, and that the respondent had not pointed to relevant health and safety policies beyond a notice about protective clothing and footwear.
The application succeeded. The tribunal held that, on the material before it, the claimant had a pretty good chance of establishing that the disclosures in the Note were protected disclosures and that they were the principal cause of dismissal. Because reinstatement or re-engagement was refused and the claimant did not seek it, the tribunal made an order for continuation of contract under section 130 ERA 1996. It recorded the claimant's weekly net pay as £337.98, ordered payment of £1,303.40 for the period from 17 January 2023 to 10 February 2023, and directed further weekly payments of £337.98 while the order remained in force.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Interim relief application succeeded under sections 128-130 ERA 1996 in relation to an automatic unfair dismissal claim under section 103A ERA 1996 based on alleged protected disclosures. The order for continuation of contract recorded weekly net pay of £337.98, payment of £1,303.40 for 17 January 2023 to 10 February 2023, and further weekly payments while the order remained in force. The judgment records the daily rate inconsistently as £68.60 in the order and £66.60 in paragraph 42; I have used the ordered sum of £1,303.40. | Upheld | — | £1,303 |
Legal tests applied
10 references- s.128 ERA 1996
- s.129 ERA 1996
- s.130 ERA 1996
- s.103A ERA 1996
- s.43B ERA 1996
- s.43C ERA 1996
- Taplin v C Shippam Ltd
- Ministry of Justice v Sarfraz
- Al Qasimi v Robinson Sheikh Khalid Bin Saqr Al Qasimi
- Dandpat v The University of Bath
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.
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.