Mr G Gibb v Glasgow School of Art: 4103428/2020
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 31 July 2022 |
| Date | 31 July 2022 |
| Published date | 16 August 2022 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Citation | 4103428/2020 |
| Subject Matter | Breach of Contract |
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND)
Case Number: 4103428/2020
5
Hearing held in Glasgow on 6 (pre-reading), 9 (case management), 10, 12,
13 and 16 May 2022, 25 May 2022 (deliberations) and 13 July 2022
(deliberations)
10
Employment Judge M Whitcombe
Tribunal Member EA Farrell
Tribunal Member AB Grant
15
Mr Gordon Gibb Claimant
In person
20
Glasgow School of Art Respondent
Represented by:
Mr N MacDougall
(Advocate)
25
JUDGMENT
30
The judgment of the Tribunal is as follows.
(1) The claim for automatically unfair dismissal for having made one or
more protected disclosures, brought under s.103A of the Employment
35
Rights Act 1996, fails and is dismissed.
(2) The claim for unfair dismissal contrary to section 98 of the Employment
Rights Act 1996 also fails and is dismissed.
Case No.: 4103428/2020 Page 2
(3) The claim that the claimant was treated detrimentally for having made
one or more protected disclosures, brought under ss.47B and 48(1A)
of the Employment Rights Act 1996, also fails and is dismissed.
REASONS
5
Introduction and background
1. The claimant was formerly employed by the respondent from 12 January
2004 until 17 January 2020 as a member of its academic staff, holding the
post of Director of Professional Studies at the Mackintosh School of
10
Architecture. The claimant worked for the respondent on a permanent part-
time basis and simultaneously maintained both a private architectural practice
and also a career as an expert witness. The claimant’s employment with the
respondent ended on 17 January 2020 when he was dismissed without notice
for gross misconduct.
15
2. The respondent is a well-known higher education institution specialising in
education and research in the visual creative disciplines. It occupies several
buildings in the centre of Glasgow. Its most famous building is the Mackintosh
Building, often known affectionately as “the Mack”. The Mackintosh Building
20
was designed by Charles Rennie Mackintosh and is widely regarded as an
iconic building of the Modern Style.
3. In recent years there have been two serious fires in the Mackintosh building.
On 24 May 2014 the first fire destroyed the loggia, the top floor studios, the
25
furniture store and the Mackintosh Library. The second fire on 15 June 2018
was catastrophic, destroying every combustible part of the building and
spreading to several nearby buildings too. The Mackintosh building was
devastated and only a burned-out shell remained.
30
4. That is the context of these claims. The claimant alleges that he made
protected disclosures regarding the respondent’s management of the building
Case No.: 4103428/2020 Page 3
and the conduct of senior figures within the organisation. The relevant
disclosures were made not to the respondent itself, but rather to the Scottish
Parliament’s Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Affairs Committee
(“CTEEA”), to the press and also on social media.
5
5. We would not wish our judgment to be misunderstood, or to be regarded as
having decided issues that we did not, and could not, address. It is not the
function of this Tribunal to investigate the causes of either fire, still less to
attribute blame. It is not our function to decide whether the claimant’s strongly
held views regarding the loss of the Mack are correct. We are simply
10
concerned with the claims and issues identified below. Our findings of fact
and conclusions are tailored accordingly.
The hearing
6. This hearing was originally listed for 6 days plus a pre-reading day. An
15
effective start was made only on the fourth of those days, partly because the
claimant contracted Covid-19 shortly before the start of the hearing and also
because, very sadly, he also suffered a bereavement. However, the parties
agreed that a fair hearing remained entirely possible within the remaining 3
days and the case was timetabled and managed on that basis in accordance
20
with rule 45. Both sides produced written submissions and made additional
oral submissions.
Claims and issues
7. The claims are for:
25
a. automatically unfair dismissal by reason of having made a protected
disclosure, contrary to s.103A ERA 1996;
b. alternatively, “ordinary” unfair dismissal contrary to s.98 ERA 1996;
c. 14 instances of detrimental treatment prior to dismissal contrary to
s.47B ERA 1996.
30
8. The following summary of the issues is based on the very helpful list agreed
To continue reading
Request your trial