Mr M Armstrong v Altrad Services Ltd: 4109341/2021
| Judgment Date | 25 November 2021 |
| Citation | 4109341/2021 |
| Date | 25 November 2021 |
| Published date | 13 December 2021 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Health & Safety |
E.T. Z4 (WR)
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND)
Case No: 4109341/2021
5
Held via Cloud Video Platform on 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 November 2021
Employment Judge Brewer
Tribunal Member Ms V Lockhart
10
Tribunal Member Mr R Dearle
Mr M Armstrong Claimant
Represented by
15
Mr P Kerfoot, Counsel
Altrad Services Limited Respondent
Represented by
20
Ms L Miller
JUDGMENT OF THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL
25
The unanimous judgment of the Tribunal is:
1. The claimant was dismissed contrary to section 100(1)(a) Employment
Rights Act 1996.
2. The claimant shall be reinstated, and the respondent shall pay to the
claimant a compensatory award to the date of the hearing of £16,098.98
30
consisting of:
a. Loss of sick pay from 1 January 2021 to 30 May 2021 of £6,352.83
b. Loss of wages from 10 June 2021 to 10 November 2021 -
£4,746.06 and
c. Loss of bonus of £5,000.00.
35
3. The respondent shall also pay to the claimant ongoing net weekly loss of
£215.73 payable to the date of reinstatement.
S/4109341/2021 Page 2
4. The Recoupment Regulations apply, and the prescribed element (loss to
the date of the hearing) amounts to £16,098.89. the monetary award
exceeds the prescribed element by the ongoing net weekly loss of
£215.73 per week from 15 November 2021.
5
REASONS
Introduction
1. This case was heard over 5 days before a full tribunal. The claimant was
represented by Mr Kerfoot of counsel and the respondent was represented
10
by Ms Miller of Scottish Engineering. There was an agreed bundle of
documents running to some 657 pages. The tribunal heard oral evidence from
the claimant and his witness Mr. Fraser, and for the respondent from Mr. T
Cairns, senior operations manager, Ms W Gould, senior HR business partner,
Mr C Wilkinson, portfolio manager, Mr B Noakes, operations manager
15
offshore, Mr S Larvin, project manager, Mr P Sheves, general manager and
Mr P Flowerdew, project manager. Both representatives provided us with
detailed written submissions as well as oral submissions and we have taken
all of that into account in reaching our judgment.
Relevant law
20
2. The claimant claims that he has been unfairly dismissed either automatically
pursuant to section 100, Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA) or in any event
under s.98 ERA. The respondent accepts that they dismissed the claimant
but say they dismissed him fairly by reason of redundancy or in the alternative
for some other substantial reason. The relevant law is as follows.
25
Automatic unfair dismissal – s.100 ERA
3. By s 100 of the ERA it is provided as follows:
“100 Health and safety cases.
30
(1) An employee who is dismissed shall be regarded for the purposes
of this Part as unfairly dismissed if the reason (or, if more than one,
the principal reason) for the dismissal is that –
To continue reading
Request your trial