Case 8001079/2024 · Employment Tribunal
E.T. Z (WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 8001079/2024 (V)5 Held on October 2024 Employment Judge J M Hendry P MacFadyen v Rd Resource Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 8001079/2024
- Decision date
- 12 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
Parties
2 namedClaimant
E.T. Z (WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 8001079/2024 (V)5 Held on October 2024 Employment Judge J M Hendry P MacFadyen
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr MacFadyen worked for 3rd Resource Ltd as an IRM Rope Access Technician from 30 March 2024 to 14 May 2024. He resigned on 7 May 2024 giving four weeks' notice under the contract. At the CVP hearing on 15 October 2024, Employment Judge J M Hendry heard evidence from the claimant and from Mr Ritchie, a director of the respondent, and found both generally credible and reliable.
The tribunal held that clause 13.2 of the contract required the employee to give four weeks' written notice and did not allow the employer to end the contract earlier. On that basis, the claimant was entitled to the remaining three weeks of notice pay, as one week had already been paid. The respondent accepted at the hearing that it would pay that balance, and the judgment records that the claim was later dismissed after payment was made, subject to deductions of PAYE and National Insurance.
The tribunal also held that clause 8 allowed the respondent to deduct the Rope Access course costs from the claimant's final wages because he resigned within six months of the course. It accepted Mr Ritchie's evidence that the course was not required in the same way as an offshore survival course, that it gave the claimant added flexibility and skills, and that the clause was not a penalty clause. The tribunal rejected the claimant's reliance on section 9 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.
On the MST certification item, the judgment states that the respondent had made an unlawful deduction of £80, but that the sum had since been paid to the claimant, so that part of the claim was dismissed. The tribunal noted that any dispute about tax deducted from the payments was a matter for HMRC. No tribunal award was made.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held that clause 8 of the contract entitled the respondent to deduct the Rope Access course costs from the claimant's final wages because he resigned within six months. It rejected the claimant's arguments that the clause was a penalty and that section 9 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 prevented the deduction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that the respondent had made an unlawful deduction of £80 for the claimant's MST certification, but that the sum had since been paid to him, so the claim was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The claimant sought three weeks' balance of contractual notice pay after one week had already been paid. The tribunal accepted that the balance was due under the contract, but the claim was dismissed after the respondent paid the sums due following the hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.