Graham Dickie V. Flexcon Glenrothes Limited
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judge | Sheriff P.J. Braid |
| Court | Sheriff Court |
| Docket Number | 7/45 |
| Date | 04 September 2009 |
| Published date | 18 September 2009 |
SHERIFFDOM OF TAYSIDE CENTRAL AND FIFE AT KIRKCALDY
A 855/03
JUDGMENT
OF
SHERIFF PETER J BRAID
In the cause
GRAHAM DICKIE (Assisted Person), residing formerly at 249 Eriskay Square, Glenrothes, Fife and now residing at 6 Glendavil Place, Glenrothes, Fife.
PURSUER
Against
FLEXCON GLENROTHES LIMITED, a company incorporated under the Companies Acts and having a place of business at Whitworth Road, Southfield Industrial Estate, Glenrothes, Fife KY6 2TF
DEFENDERSKirkcaldy, 4 September 2009
Act: Kelly, Advocate
Alt: Shand, QC
The Sheriff, having resumed consideration of the cause, makes the following findings in fact:
| 1 | The pursuer is Graham Dickie, aged 34, residing formerly at 249 Eriskay Square, Glenrothes, Fife and now at 6 Glendavil Place, Glenrothes. He is unemployed. The defenders are Flexcon Glenrothes Limited, a company incorporated under the Companies Acts and having a place of business at Whitworth Road, Southfield Industrial Estate, Glenrothes, KY6 2TF |
| 2 | The pursuer resides with his partner, Melanie Nelson, and with their six children, aged from 14 to 3. |
| 3 | The business carried on by the defenders involves a manufacturing process whereby raw material is manufactured into finished products which are in turn used for the creation of labels. |
| 4 | Three different types of machine are involved in the manufacturing process. The pressure sensitive (PS) machine is used to manufacture the products, using three constituent raw materials: film, adhesive and liner. The top coat machine then applies a surface to the finished material so that certain inks can adhere to the surface. Finally, the slitting machines (or slitters) cut the finished rolls of manufactured material into the sizes required by the customer. |
| 5 | The pursuer began employment with the defenders as a materials handler on 20 April 1999. His duties included: booking raw materials in and out of stock; stacking rolls of raw material on to racks; moving raw materials from the storage racks to the PS machine; thereafter, moving manufactured products to the other machines as required; moving finished products; and recording all stock movements on computer. When a roll of material was used to manufacture a product, he had to calculate the "returns", that is, the quantity of material remaining. It was part of the pursuer's duties to record the returns on the computer. |
| 6 | The stock movements and returns were initially recorded in hand on sheets of paper, known as transaction sheets, prior to being entered on to the computer system. It was also part of the pursuer's duties to complete the transaction sheets in relation to materials handled by him. |
| 7 | The defenders' stock data was managed on computer by a software programme known as the Madisun System. Part of the pursuer's duties entailed updating that system. For the smooth running of the defenders' factory, it was desirable that all stock movements and returns be recorded on the Madisun system as soon as possible after they had occurred. |
| 8 | The defenders' stock controller at all relevant times was Jim Harwood ("Harwood"). As such, he had a legitimate interest to ensure, among other things, that the computer records pertaining to stock were promptly updated by the materials handlers including the pursuer. |
| 9 | From time to time, adhesive would spill during the manufacturing process on the PS machine. It was not part of the pursuer's duties to assist in the clearing up of such spillages (or web breaks, as they were also known). It was however in the defenders' interests that the spillages be cleared up as soon as possible, in order that the PS machine might resume production. |
| 10 | The pursuer's employment commenced with an initial training and induction period, during which he was supervised by, and reported to, Harwood. |
| 11 | In or about August 1999, the pursuer was allocated to work on one of the defenders' night shifts ("night shift 2"). At first, on that shift, he was supervised by the shift leader, Colin Christie, but still reported to Harwood. At some point between August 1999 and April 2000, Mr Christie assumed sole managerial responsibility for the pursuer. |
| 12 | In October 1999, the pursuer was eligible to receive a pay increase but it could not be implemented until authority was given by John Gibson, the defenders' operations manager, who was by that time the person responsible for so doing. Colin Christie mistakenly sent emails to Harwood, who had previously been the responsible person, on 8 and 14 October 1999 asking him to authorise the increase. Harwood did not respond to those emails, which he did however forward to Gibson. On 21 October 1999, Christie sent an email (a copy of which is No. 5/16 of process) to Gibson, saying that he had received no response to his earlier emails to Harwood and that he thought the pursuer merited a pay increase. Shortly thereafter, Gibson authorised the pay increase. |
| 13 | Christie gave a copy of the email no 5/16 of process to the pursuer. The pursuer formed the belief that the email showed that he had been blocked for his pay increase by Harwood. That belief was unreasonable. The fault lay primarily with Gibson and Christie. |
| 14 | On one occasion when the pursuer was working on night shift 2, Harwood told him to throw out certain products but not to tell John Gibson. The pursuer was concerned by this request, lest he got into trouble. He therefore reported the request to Mr Christie, who countermanded the instruction given by Harwood. Later, after the products had been checked by the defenders' quality control department, the products were thrown out. Harwood never discussed his request with the pursuer again. |
| 15 | After that incident, the pursuer formed the view that Harwood did not like him. That view was well founded, as Harwood did dislike the pursuer. |
| 16 | The primary reason for that dislike was Harwood's genuinely held belief that the pursuer did not perform certain aspects of his job in a satisfactory manner. Harwood was entitled to hold that view of the pursuer. He was also entitled to be critical of fellow employees including the pursuer insofar as their performance adversely impinged upon the movement of stock and the recording of stock movements on the Madisun system. |
| 17 | The pursuer has a sensitive personality and is more sensitive to criticism than most. Another aspect of his personality is that he needs other people to like and approve of him. |
| 18 | The pursuer did not like Harwood, whom he considered to be unduly critical of him. |
| 19 | Harwood was not in general helpful towards the pursuer. For example, when the pursuer asked him how to close down a work order using a different method from the one the pursuer had been taught, Harwood refused to show him. However, in that regard, Harwood did not treat the pursuer differently from any other employee. |
| 20 | On occasion, when the pursuer handed his transaction sheets to Harwood, Harwood criticised the pursuer's handwriting and asked him to write the sheets out again. |
| 21 | On one occasion in 1999 or 2000 Harwood was speaking to others in the canteen, about a new car acquired by the pursuer, who was not present. In the course of that conversation, Harwood referred to the pursuer as a mummy's boy. The pursuer did not find out about this until after he had left the pursuer's employment. |
| 22 | When the pursuer was still on night shift 2, he was due to take part in a stock count over both days of a weekend. On the Saturday morning his car failed to start, resulting in his being late. Later that day the pursuer told Harwood that as he would have to get his car repaired, he would be unable to attend on the Sunday. Harwood, who was justifiably irritated by the pursuer's not being able to attend for a pre-arranged stock-take, told the pursuer that he could not hack it. |
| 23 | Another materials handler employed by the defenders was Graham Stewart. He worked on day shift to the pursuer's night shift, so that the pursuer would hand over to Mr Stewart and vice versa. It sometimes happened that one of them left work for the other to finish (as other materials handlers did from time to time). This would entail the pursuer sometimes leaving work for Mr Stewart to complete, and Mr Stewart sometimes leaving work for the pursuer to complete. |
| 24 | On one occasion, the pursuer left a transaction sheet for Mr Stewart to enter three pieces of information on it into the computer system. When Harwood became aware of this, he criticised the pursuer for not having completed his work. |
| 25 | Harwood took the pursuer to see Colin Christie as a result of the foregoing. He told Mr Christie that the pursuer was not finishing his work. On being told that the pursuer had put the rolls back into the racks, Mr Christie told Harwood that he should not have bothered him with such a trivial issue first thing in the morning, and that the pursuer was the best materials handler he had had. |
| 26 | On occasion, during the eight or nine months when the pursuer was working on nightshift 2, Mr Stewart left physical work for the pursuer to complete. In particular, he sometimes left empty pallets and adhesive barrels for the pursuer to throw out. The discarding of empty pallets and adhesive barrels was not a task which commanded high priority, and on any occasion when Mr Stewart left this task for the pursuer he did so because he had been instructed by Harwood (who worked the same shift as Mr Stewart) to attend to more pressing tasks such as moving stock which was required for an ongoing job. There was nothing improper about any such instruction, which Harwood was entitled to give. Mr Stewart apologised to the pursuer for having left work for him to complete, but such... |
To continue reading
Request your trial