Case 8000072/2024 · Employment Tribunal
L Millar and R Taggart Mr R Doull v Renfrew Transport Services Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 8000072/2024
- Decision date
- 28 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge McCluskey Members
- Venue
- Glasgow
- Panel members
- L Millar, R Taggart
Parties
2 namedClaimant
L Millar and R Taggart Mr R Doull
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Renfrew Transport Services Limited, not Renfrew Warehousing & Distribution Limited, remained the claimant’s employer throughout his employment. It upheld the claimant’s wages and holiday pay complaints, finding he had not been paid from 25 December 2023 to 13 January 2024 and that he had four days of accrued but untaken annual leave at termination.
On disability, the tribunal found that the claimant was disabled by reason of hand arm vibration syndrome (HAVS), but not by reason of his mental ill health impairment at the relevant times because it was not shown to have a long-term effect within the statutory definition. The direct disability discrimination and disability-related harassment complaints, which were advanced by reference to the mental health impairment, were therefore dismissed. The complaint of discrimination arising from disability succeeded because the tribunal found the respondent removed an auto-close device from a fire door, causing the claimant to have to close the door manually and use his hands in a way that caused difficulty because of HAVS, and the respondent provided no adequate explanation for that treatment.
The tribunal also found that the claimant made protected disclosures in November 2023 about fire extinguishers and the removal of the auto-close device, both concerning health and safety risks and made in the public interest. It held that the claimant’s suspension on 22 December 2023 was a detriment materially influenced by those disclosures, and that his dismissal on 13 January 2024 was automatically unfair because the reason, or principal reason, for dismissal was that he had made protected disclosures.
For remedy, the tribunal awarded compensation for unlawful deductions, holiday pay, discrimination arising from disability, whistleblowing detriment, and automatic unfair dismissal. It awarded injury to feelings for the disability discrimination and whistleblowing detriment complaints, with interest, and awarded a basic award plus statutory notice pay for the automatic unfair dismissal claim. The separate notice pay and statutory redundancy payment claims were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
9 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £950 |
| Holiday pay | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £253 |
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability succeeded; award comprised £3,500 injury to feelings and £268.49 interest. | Upheld | Disability | £3,768 |
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination complaint was dismissed because the tribunal found the claimant was not disabled by reason of his mental health impairment at the relevant time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Disability-related harassment complaints were dismissed because the tribunal found the claimant was not disabled by reason of his mental health impairment at the relevant times. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Whistleblowing | Detriment for making protected disclosures succeeded; award comprised £5,000 injury to feelings and £350.68 interest. |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £14,278
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £2,374
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £1,583
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
8 references- Goodwin v Patent Office four-question approach
- s.15 Equality Act 2010
- s.136 Equality Act 2010 burden of proof
- Pnaiser v NHS England significant influence test
- Cavendish Munro / Kilraine disclosure of information
- Chesterton Global Ltd v Nurmohamed public interest reasonable belief
- Fecitt material influence test
- s.103A ERA 1996
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.