Case 8000280/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G McEvoy v McCallum Foods Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 8000280/2023
- Decision date
- 9 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge C McManus
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G McEvoy
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal substituted McCallum Foods Ltd T/A German Doner Kebab as the respondent and dealt with the claims from the claimant's employment as a nightshift cleaner at 52-56 Renfield Street, Glasgow. The claimant started work on 25 February 2019, later worked 48 hours a week, and was paid GBP13 per hour, with gross monthly pay found to be GBP2,496 and net monthly pay GBP2,200.
The dismissal followed a dispute on 2 June 2023 about holiday pay. The claimant said he was owed 6 days' holiday pay, shouted at the manager, and said he would not return until it was paid. The respondent sent letters referring first to threatening behaviour and then to bullying behaviour, but the statements taken in the investigation recorded only that the claimant had shouted about holiday pay and did not support allegations of threatening or bullying conduct. The claimant also sent a self-certification sickness form referring to stress caused by management in work. He did not attend the rescheduled disciplinary meeting, and on 10 June 2023 he was dismissed for gross misconduct without notice or pay in lieu of notice and without an appeal being offered.
Applying section 98 ERA 1996 and the Burchell test, the tribunal held that the respondent did not have reasonable grounds to believe that the claimant had engaged in bullying behaviour and that the dismissal was unfair. It found that the investigation material did not support the allegations, that the claimant was not given detail of the conduct said to justify dismissal, and that no steps were taken to investigate his account that he was absent because of work-related stress. The tribunal awarded a basic award of GBP2,419.20 and a compensatory award of GBP11,025, with a 5% uplift because no appeal was offered, and it rejected any reduction for contributory conduct.
The redundancy payment claim was dismissed because there was no redundancy situation. The tribunal upheld the holiday pay claim under section 13 ERA 1996 and ordered GBP472.12, being GBP723 for 56 hours at GBP13 per hour less GBP255.88 already paid. It also upheld the breach of contract claim for notice pay and awarded GBP2,304, representing 4 weeks' gross pay. The race discrimination claim and the religion or belief discrimination claim were withdrawn and dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissal found unfair under section 98 ERA 1996; final award was a basic award of 2419.20 and a compensatory award of 11025 after a 5% ACAS uplift. | Upheld | — | £13,444 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Accrued but unpaid holiday pay under section 13 ERA 1996; tribunal found 723 due for 56 hours at 13 per hour less 255.88 already paid. | Upheld | — | £472 |
| Breach of contract | Notice pay claim succeeded; tribunal awarded 4 weeks' gross pay at 576 per week. | Upheld | — | £2,304 |
| Redundancy | Dismissed because the tribunal found there was no redundancy situation. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Claim was withdrawn and dismissed after the claimant confirmed withdrawal at the hearing. | Withdrawn | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Claim was withdrawn and dismissed after the claimant confirmed withdrawal at the hearing. | Withdrawn | Religion or belief | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £16,220
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £2,419
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £11,025
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
10 references- s.98 ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- Burchell test
- band of reasonable responses
- s.123 ERA 1996
- section 207A TULR(C)A 1992
- s.13 ERA 1996
- Working Time Regulations 1998
- s.135 ERA 1996
- s.86 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.