Mr William Allison and others v Marshalls Group Ltd: 4104784/2017 and others
| Judgment Date | 19 July 2018 |
| Citation | 4104784/2017 and others |
| Published date | 11 January 2019 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Breach of Contract |
E.T. Z4 (WR)
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND)
5
Case Numbers: 4104784/2017, 4104791/2017 & 4104792/2017
Held in Glasgow on 8, 9, 10, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 30 May 2018
10
Employment Judge: Claire McManus
Mr William Allison First Claimant
Case No. 4104784/2017
15
Represented by:
Ms H Hogben
(Counsel)
Mr Peter Nisbet Second Claimant
20
Case No. 4104791/2017
Represented by:
Ms H Hogben
(Counsel)
25
Mr Malcolm Nugent Third Claimant
Case No. 4104792/2017
Represented by:
Ms H Hogben
(Counsel)
30
Marshalls Group Limited Respondent
Represented by:
Mr J Cran
35
(Solicitor)
JUDGMENT OF THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL
40
The Judgment of the Tribunal is that:-
4104784/2017, 4104791/2017 & 4104792/2017 Page 2
1. The First Claimant’s (William Allison) claim for constructive unfair dismissal under
Section 95(1)(c) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 is unsuccessful and is
dismissed.
5
2. The Second Claimant’s (Peter Nisbet) claim for constructive unfair dismissal under
Section 95(1)(c) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 is unsuccessful and is
dismissed.
3. The Third Claimant’s (Malcolm Nugent) claim for unfair dismissal under Section 98
10
of the Employment Rights Act 1996 is successful and the third claimant is awarded
the total sum of £6,276 (SIX THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED AND SEVENTY SIX
POUNDS), comprising of a basic award of £2,934 (TWO THOUSAND NINE
HUNDRED AND THRTY FOUR POUNDS) and a compensatory award of £3,342
(THREE THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED AND FORTY TWO POUNDS).
15
REASONS
Background
20
4. All claimants were employed by the Respondent. The First and Second claimants
resigned from their employment with the respondent and claimed constructive
unfair dismissal. The third claimant was dismissed by the respondent and claims
unfair dismissal and breach of contract in respect of notice. The claims were
25
conjoined to be heard together because the resignation of the first and second
claimants and the dismissal of the third claimant arose from the same factual
circumstances.
4104784/2017, 4104791/2017 & 4104792/2017 Page 3
5. The Final Hearing in respect of all three claims was originally scheduled to take
place on the 8, 9, 10, 15 and 16 May 2018. During the course of those initial dates,
it was the position of both parties’ representatives that additional days would be
required and so additional hearing dates were arranged, with further evidence
being heard on 18 and 19 May and it being agreed that parties’ representatives
5
would then speak to their written submissions on 30 May 2018. On 30 May it was
both parties’ representatives’ position that they were unable to provide up to date
details to the Tribunal in respect of the claimants’ schedules of loss, including
pension loss. Given that evidence had been heard on loss, that the identified
issues for determination by the Tribunal included remedy and that parties’
10
representatives’ position (at that time) was that there was not a great deal of
difference between their up-to-date calculations of loss, parties’ representatives
were directed to agree a schedule of loss in respect of each claimant, to be
submitted to the Tribunal by 12 noon on 8 June 2018. The respondent’s
representative’s email to the Tribunal office of 8 June informed that the respondent
15
was not able to agree the figures for losses, for the reasons set out in that email.
There was no comment on this email to the Tribunal from the claimants’
representatives. The Tribunal took into account that it was the respondent’s
representative’s position in that email that an explanation for delay in providing
information on loss from in particular the first and second claimants should be
20
provided and that there may be an application on expenses from the respondent in
respect of that matter.
6. Parties’ representatives had helpfully liaised to prepare a Joint Bundle. This was
set out in one volume with numbered pages. The numbers in brackets in this
25
decision refer to the page numbers in that bundle. Not all documents were referred
to in evidence. The Tribunal was asked to take into account all documents from
production number 114 - 168 in the Bundle.
7. Evidence was heard on oath from all claimants and witnesses. Parties
30
representatives had agreed at the outset of the healing that the respondent’s case
To continue reading
Request your trial