Mr S Glover v McColl's Travel Ltd: 4104410/2016

Judgment Date23 February 2017
Subject MatterUnlawful Deduction from Wages
Date23 February 2017
Published date29 March 2017
CourtEmployment Tribunal
E.T. Z4 (WR)
Case No: S/4104410/16
5 Held in Glasgow on 13, 14, 15, 16 February 2017
& 17 February 2017 (In Chambers)
Employment Judge: P Wallington QC
Members: Mr I Poad 10 Mr A Ross
Mr Steven Glover Claimant 15 Represented by:
Mr L Anderson -
20 McColl's Travel Limited Respondent
Represented by:
Mr S Connolly -
The unanimous Judgment of the Tribunal is as follows:-
(1) The claimant`s claim of detriment having made protected disclosures is
outwith the jurisdiction of the Tribunal by reason that it is time barred.
(2) The claimant`s claim of automatic unfair dismissal pursuant to Section 103A
of the Employment Rights Act 1996 is not well founded and is dismissed. 35
(3) The claimant was unfairly dismissed by the respondent. The Tribunal
awards the claimant a basic award of £5,427.00 (Five Thousand, Four
Hundred and Twenty Seven Pounds) and a compensatory award of
£1,364.27 (One Thousand, Three Hundred and Sixty Four Pounds, Twenty 40
Seven Pence), making a total award of £6,791.27 (Six Thousand, Seven
Hundred and Ninety One Pounds, Twenty Seven Pence). The Recoupment
Regulations do not apply to this award.
(4) The claimant`s claim for an uplift in the compensatory award for unfair
dismissal pursuant to Section 207A of the Trade Union & Labour Relations 5
(Consolidation) Act 1992 is not well founded and is dismissed.
(5) The claimant`s claim for a redundancy payment is not well founded and is
(6) Pursuant to Rules 75(1)(b) and 76(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of
Procedure 2013, the Tribunal awards the claimant expenses in the sum of
£1,200.00 (One Thousand, Two Hundred Pounds) being fees incurred by
the claimant in presenting and prosecuting these proceedings.
1. In this case the claimant, Mr Steven Glover, claims against his former
employers McColl`s Travel Ltd in respect of his dismissal, with effect from 20
13 May 2016, from his employment by the respondent as a Bus Driver.
2. The primary claim made by the claimant is of automatic unfair dismissal
pursuant to Section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996, which
applies where the reason or principal reason for the dismissal was that the 25
claimant made a protected disclosure (commonly referred to as a
whistleblowing disclosure). In the alternative, the claimant claims that he
was unfairly dismissed contrary to Sections 94 and 98 of the Employment
Rights Act 1996. In the further alternative, the claimant claims a statutory
redundancy payment. An additional claim is made pursuant to Section 48 of 30
the Employment Rights Act 1996 in respect of having been subjected to
detriment by reason of having made protected disclosures. In addition to
the foregoing claims, the claimant made a claim for an uplift of the
compensatory award for unfair dismissal (whether under Section 103A or
Section 98 of the 1996 Act) under Section 207A of the Trade Union and
Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, on the ground that the
respondent had unreasonably failed to comply with the ACAS Code of
Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures in respect of his 5
dismissal. All of these claims were put into dispute by the respondent in its
3. At the commencement of the Hearing of this claim, the Tribunal drew the
attention of the claimant`s representative to the lack of specification in 10
relation to the claims based on protected disclosures, and requested the
that he provide further specification of the disclosures relied on and the
basis upon which they were asserted to be protected, and of the detriments
relied on. These particulars were provided, but it was apparent that the
particulars raised allegations of detriments other than those pleaded in 15
paragraph 43 of the paper apart to the ET1, which referred to the issuing to
the claimant on 3 March 2016 of a letter giving notice of termination of his
employment and a separate letter offering re-engagement on different and
inferior terms in an enclosed contract, and the dismissal itself.
4. We took the view that the references to further alleged detriments required
to be treated as an application to amend the original particulars of the claim.
The claimant`s representative submitted that permission to amend should
be granted, but this was opposed by the respondent`s representative. We
considered, applying the well known criteria for permission to amend set out 25
in the case of Selkent Bus Co Ltd v Moore [1996] ICR 836, that the
application for permission to amend should be refused, because the
balance of prejudice or hardship if the amendment was permitted was
greater than if it was refused. We took into account in particular the failure
of the claimant to seek to advance the additional detriments now relied on 30
until after the commencement of the hearing, and then only in the context of
having been asked for specification, not additions to, his case, and that
there would be particular prejudice to the respondent in having to deal with

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