Mr A Bowie v Alltec Construction Ltd: S/4121035/2018
| Judgment Date | 03 April 2019 |
| Date | 03 April 2019 |
| Citation | S/4121035/2018 |
| Published date | 12 April 2019 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Age Discrimination |
E.T. Z4 (WR)
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND)
Case No: S/4121035/2018
5
Hearing Held at Dundee on 18, 19 and 20 March 2019
Employment Judge: Mr A Kemp
Members: Mr K Culloch
Mr J R Terry
10
Mr A Bowie Claimant
In person
15
Alltec Construction Ltd Respondents
20
Represented by:
Mr D Hay
Advocate
25
JUDGMENT OF THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL
The Claims for unfair dismissal and discrimination on grounds of age do not
30
succeed and are dismissed.
REASONS
35
Introduction
1. The Claimant made a claim for unfair dismissal, and for age discrimination.
That was identified at the commencement of the hearing as direct
S/4121035/2018 Page 2
discrimination under section 13 of the Equality Act 2010, but latterly also as
potentially one of harassment under section 26. The claims were denied by
the Respondents.
2. The Claimant represented himself. The Respondents were represented by
5
Mr Hay.
Issues
3. The Tribunal identified the following issues:
10
(i) What was the reason for that dismissal?
(ii) If the reason was potentially fair under section 98(1) and (2) of the
Employment Rights Act 1996, was that dismissal unfair under section
98(4) of the Act?
(iii) Was there direct discrimination on grounds of age under section 13 of
15
the Equality Act 2010?
(iv) Had there been harassment on grounds of age under section 26 of that
Act?
(v) Did the Tribunal have jurisdiction to hear the claims under the 2010 Act?
(vi) If there was an unfair dismissal, or discrimination what was the extent
20
of the Claimant’s losses and what remedy should be given?
(vii) If there was an unfair dismissal had there been any contribution by the
Claimant to that dismissal?
Evidence
25
4. A bundle of documents had been prepared, and was added to by the
provision of information as to earnings of the Claimant and some invoices for
periods after dismissal. The Respondents led evidence from Mr Graham
Wallace, Mr Graeme Macintosh and Mr Greg Robins. The Claimant gave
30
evidence himself.
To continue reading
Request your trial