Mr S Cree v Prestwick Aircraft Maintenance Ltd: 4104643/2018
| Judgment Date | 03 May 2019 |
| Subject Matter | Working Time Regulations |
| Date | 03 May 2019 |
| Citation | 4104643/2018 |
| Published date | 03 September 2019 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
E.T. Z4 (WR)
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND)
Case No: 4104643/2018
5
Held in Glasgow on 26, 27 and 28 March 2019
Employment Judge: P O’Donnell
10
Mr S Cree Claimant
Represented by:
Mr E Mowat -
Solicitor
15
Prestwick Aircraft Maintenance Ltd Respondent
Represented by:
Mr D Hutchison -
Solicitor
20
JUDGMENT OF THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL
The judgment of the Employment Tribunal is that the Claimant was dismissed as
defined in section 95(1)(c) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and that such
dismissal was unfair. The Tribunal awards the Claimant the sum of £12303.17
(Twelve thousand, three hundred and three pounds and seventeen pence) as
25
compensation for unfair dismissal. The Tribunal also makes an additional award
under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 equivalent to two weeks’ wages
amounting to £824.12 (Eight hundred and twenty four pounds and twelve pence).
REASONS
Introduction
30
1. The Claimant brought complaints of constructive unfair dismissal, breach of
contract and illegal deduction of wages in relation to holiday pay. He also
sought an additional award under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002.
The claim is resisted by the Respondent.
4104643/2018 Page 2
Preliminary issues
2. At the outset of the hearing, the claims for breach of contract and illegal
deduction of wages were withdrawn. There being no objection from the
Claimant, these claims were dismissed under Rule 52.
Evidence
5
3. The Tribunal heard evidence from the following witnesses:-
a. The Claimant
b. Jame McCaul, a fellow employee of the Claimant’s who accompanied
the Claimant at certain of the meetings held between the Claimant and
the Respondent
10
c. Julie Main, the Respondent’s HR officer
d. Vivianne Cunningham, a director of the Respondent with responsibility
for HR
e. Andrew Marshall, the Respondent’s base maintenance manager who
heard the Claimant’s appeal.
15
4. There was an agreed bundle of documents prepared by the parties.
References to page numbers are a reference to the page numbers of the joint
bundle.
Comments on the evidence
5. The Tribunal found all of the witnesses to be credible and that they sought to
20
give evidence in a truthful manner including accepting matters which might be
prejudicial to their case.
6. Some of the witnesses (the Claimant and Mr Marshall) did have to have some
points put to them more than once or had to have the Judge intervene to
clarify what was being asked. However, the Tribunal considered that this
25
arose more as a matter of the witness not understanding the question rather
than them trying to evade an answer.
4104643/2018 Page 3
7. There was not a significant dispute of fact between the parties in relation to
the relevant facts and any disagreement was more related to how different
witnesses had interpreted events.
8. Further, the documentary evidence, in particular the notes of the various
meetings (although it was accepted by all parties that these were not verbatim
5
transcripts) tended to reflect the oral evidence from the different witnesses.
Findings in Fact
9. The Tribunal makes the following relevant findings in fact.
10. The Respondent is an aircraft maintenance company who provides
maintenance and repair services to Ryanair at Prestwick Airport. They
10
employ approximately 520 people; 400 permanent employees and 120
contractors.
11. The Claimant commenced employment with the Respondent on 28 August
2012 as a trainee mechanic.
12. At the outset of his employment, the Claimant was provided with a statement
15
of terms and conditions of employment set out at pp31-41. This statement
described the Claimant’s hours of work as “08.30 to 17.30 Monday through
Friday (40 hours per week)”.
13. In fact, the Claimant’s hours of work did not reflect what was said in this
statement; he worked a 5 days on, 3 days off shift pattern with 4 shifts of 12
20
hours each and 1 shift of 8 hours. This was part of the Respondent’s
annualised hours system whereby they had a shutdown over the summer
months.
14. The annualised hours system was set out in a document called “The Rough
Guide to PAM” which was referred to in the statement of terms and conditions.
25
This was not a hard copy document and, instead, was available online on the
Respondent’s computer systems.
To continue reading
Request your trial