Case 8001363/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L Black v Caledonian Automatic Transmissions Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 8001363/2025
- Decision date
- 23 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge E Mannion
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr L Black
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr L Black was employed by Caledonian Automatic Transmissions Ltd as a mechanic. The tribunal heard evidence about an altercation on 21 February 2025, a short meeting and suspension on 24 February, and a further meeting on 25 February. It found that the claimant, Mr Tierney and Mr Galloway were all aggressive during the 21 February incident, but that the later 24 February suspension had no reasonable or proper cause and was serious enough to damage the employment relationship. The tribunal treated the 25 February meeting as a final straw because the respondent had a closed view of the claimant’s concerns about Mr Galloway and offered no real proposal to resolve the matter.
The tribunal accepted that the claimant resigned on 28 March 2025 in response to the February events and did not affirm the contract during the period before resignation. It held that the 21 February suspension alone was not a fundamental breach, and that it did not need to decide the wider allegations of bullying and threats because the breaches on 24 and 25 February were sufficient. On that basis, the claimant succeeded in his constructive unfair dismissal claim under section 95(1)(c) ERA 1996, applying the authorities it cited on constructive dismissal, trust and confidence, and the last straw doctrine.
On remedy, the tribunal awarded a basic award of £3,100 and a compensatory award of £8,689.22. It rejected the respondent’s submissions on Polkey, contributory fault, failure to mitigate, and any ACAS-code reduction. The claimant was 24 years old with five complete years of service and a gross weekly wage of £620; the compensatory award was calculated by reference to net loss, including periods of universal credit, freelance software work, and SASS payments, and the tribunal found the losses were attributable to the dismissal. Separately, the respondent conceded that it had failed to provide written particulars of employment, and the tribunal made a just and equitable award of £1,860, being three weeks’ pay, under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was constructively unfairly dismissed. It held that the 24 February 2025 suspension was a fundamental breach of the implied term of trust and confidence, with the 25 February meeting as the final straw. No Polkey, contributory fault or ACAS-code reduction was applied. | Upheld | — | £11,789 |
| Other | The respondent conceded a failure to provide the claimant with a written statement of terms and conditions of employment. The tribunal treated the award as arising under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 and awarded three weeks' pay on a just and equitable basis. | Upheld | — | £1,860 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £13,649
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £3,100
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £8,689
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
20 references- s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996
- Western Excavating (EEC) Ltd v Sharp
- Malik v BCCI implied trust and confidence term
- Bournemouth University Higher Education Corporation v Buckland objective test
- last straw doctrine
- Kaur v Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust
- Lochuack v London Borough of Sutton
- s.119 ERA 1996
- s.123 ERA 1996
- Polkey deduction
- Software 2000 Ltd v Andrews
- contributory conduct
- Steen v ASP Packaging Ltd
- mitigation of loss
- Fyfe v Scientific Furnishings Limited
- Cooper Contracting Ltd v Lindsey
- Acas Code reduction
- Kuehne and Nagel Ltd v Cosgrove
- Lawless v Print Plus
- s.38 Employment Act 2002
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.