Mrs Lillias McWilliam v Stranraer Skills Station Ltd — 2026

At the outset the tribunal recorded that the holiday-pay complaint and the notice-pay breach of contract complaint were withdrawn by Mrs McWilliam at the hearing on 13 January 2026 and dismissed under Rule 51. The remaining live complaints were unfair dismissal, breach of contract about alleged refusal to permit homeworking, and unauthorised deductions from wages for salary and a working-from-home allowance between mid-June 2024 and 11 May 2025.

On the contractual issues, the tribunal found that by February 2016 Mrs McWilliam and Leonard Cheshire Disability had agreed that she would work from home on a permanent basis after the Stranraer office closed, and that a homeworking allowance was also agreed, later standing at £52.33 per month. It rejected the later written statements as erroneous. The tribunal further found that the allowance was not contractually payable during sickness absence, because there was no express or implied agreement to that effect.

After the TUPE transfer to Stranraer Skills Station Ltd on 13 November 2023, the respondent did not pay the working-from-home allowance and initially understood from the TUPE information that there was no formal approval for homeworking. The tribunal held that the respondent did not breach contract by failing to pay the allowance during sickness absence. It also rejected the damages claim based on alleged lost earnings, finding that even if there had been an anticipatory refusal to confirm homeworking, the claimant had not shown that she was fit to work from home continuously or intermittently during the claimed period.

For the unfair dismissal complaint, the tribunal accepted that the reason for dismissal was capability owing to ill health within section 98(2)(a) ERA 1996. It found that the respondent had consulted Mrs McWilliam, obtained occupational health evidence, and was entitled to conclude that there was no realistic prospect of her returning to work in the foreseeable future after almost 18 months' absence. The delays in arranging occupational health and the handling of fit notes were criticised, but they did not make the dismissal decision unreasonable when judged at the time it was taken.

The tribunal also found serious defects in the appeal process, including confusion about the applicable procedure and the original decision-maker's involvement in the appeal outcome. However, Mrs McWilliam's appeal grounds were limited to corrections to the meeting minutes and she did not challenge the substance of the dismissal at the appeal hearing. In those unusual circumstances, the procedural defects did not render the overall dismissal unfair. The tribunal therefore dismissed the unfair dismissal claim, and added that if it had been wrong on fairness it would in any event have applied Polkey and reduced compensation to zero because the claimant remained unfit for work.