Case 8001824/2024 · Employment Tribunal

Mr M McGarty v Represented by: Mr R Quigley - Lay Representative Markon Limited — 2025

Case reference: 8001824/2024
Decision date: 31 January 2025
Jurisdiction: Scotland
Judge: Employment Judge E Mannion
Venue: Glasgow

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr M McGarty

Respondent

Represented by: Mr R Quigley - Lay Representative Markon Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

Mr M McGarty was employed by Markon Ltd from 8 July 2019 until 31 January 2025. His contract provided for overtime where authorised, with overtime to be claimed on a timesheet and submitted for managerial authorisation. The tribunal heard evidence about the respondent's timesheet process, the claimant's grievance about altered timesheets and alleged unpaid overtime, and the subsequent appeal stages in which the respondent reviewed historic records.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unlawful deduction from wages	The tribunal found the claimant was paid for all authorised overtime. It accepted the respondent's timesheets as original records, rejected the claimant's notebook as contemporaneous evidence, and found no proved weekly underpayments beyond two possible shortfalls identified on the grievance appeal, for which the respondent paid £69.39.	Dismissed	—	—
Breach of contract	The claim concerned alleged breach of the implied term of trust and confidence arising from timesheet amendments made without prior consultation. The tribunal held there was reasonable and proper cause for the amendments and, in any event, no financial loss was proved.	Dismissed	—	—

Legal tests applied

5 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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.