Mr G Gibson and Mr J Campbell v James Carr and Sons (Sawmillers) Ltd: 4104681/2020 and 4104682/2020

Judgment Date24 August 2021
Citation4104681/2020 and 4104682/2020
Date24 August 2021
Published date02 September 2021
CourtEmployment Tribunal
Subject MatterUnfair Dismissal
E.T. Z4 (WR)
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND)
Case No: 4104681/2020 & 4104682/2020
5
Held by Cloud Video Platform (CVP) on 2-4 August 2021
Employment Judge M Sangster
10
Mr G Gibson First Claimant
Represented by
Mrs Hay
Solicitor
15
Mr J Campbell Second Claimant
Represented by
Mrs Hay
Solicitor
20
James Carr and Sons (Sawmillers) Limited Respondent
Represented by
Ms Amir
Solicitor
25
JUDGMENT OF THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL
The judgment of the Tribunal is that the claims brought by the claimants do not
succeed and are dismissed.
30
REASONS
Introduction
1. This was a final hearing which took place remotely. This was not objected
to by the parties. The form of remote hearing was video. A face-to-face
35
hearing was not held because it was not practicable due to the Covid-19
pandemic and all issues could be determined in a remote hearing.
4104681/2020 & 4104682/2020 Page 2
2. The claimants presented claims of detriment contrary to section 44(1)(d)
& (e) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA) and constructive unfair
dismissal.
3. The respondent denied that the claimants were unfairly dismissed and that
they had been subjected to any detriments.
5
4. The claimants gave evidence on their own behalf.
5. The respondent led evidence from:
a. Stephen Havranek, managing director of the respondent; and
b. Paul Craig, sawmiller, employed by the respondent.
6. The parties lodged an agreed joint bundle of documents extending to 331
10
pages, in advance of the hearing. The parties also lodged supplementary
bundles, extending to 35 pages for the claimants and 29 pages for the
respondent.
Issues to be Determined
7. It was agreed at the outset of the hearing that the issues to be determined
15
were as noted below.
Detriment s44(1)(d) ERA
8. Were the claimants in circumstances of danger which the claimants:
a. reasonably believed to be serious and imminent; and
b. could not reasonably have been expected to avert?
20
9. If so:
a. did the claimants leave (or propose to leave) their place of work; or
b. refuse (while the danger persisted) to return to their place of work?
10. If so, did the respondent subject the claimants to the following detriment
as a result of doing so?
25

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT