Ms A McMahon v Mr W Finlayson T/a Finlaysons: 4103392/2018
| Judgment Date | 18 February 2019 |
| Citation | 4103392/2018 |
| Published date | 31 July 2019 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Breach of Contract |
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND)
Case No: 4103392/2018
Held in Glasgow on 3 October 2018, 4 October 2018, 10 December 2018, 18
December 2018, 16 January 2019 and 23 January 2019
Employment Judge: Rory McPherson
Claimant
Ms A McMahon
Represented by:
Mr Mowatt
Respondent
Mr W Finlayson t/a Finlaysons
In person
JUDGMENT OF THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL
The judgment of the Employment Tribunal is that:
(1) the claim for unfair dismissal succeeds; and
(2) the respondent is ordered to pay the monetary award for unfair dismissal in the
sum of Sixteen Thousand and Thirty Pounds and Fourteen Pence
(£16,030.14). The prescribed element of this award is Ten Thousand Eight
Hundred and Thirty Two Pounds and Eighty Seven Pence (£10,832.87) and
as the monetary sum exceeds the prescribed element by Five Thousand One
Hundred and Ninety Seven Pounds and Twenty Seven Pence (£5,197.27)
that sum is payable immediately to the claimant.
REASONS Introduction
4103392/2018 Page 2
Preliminary Procedure
1. This claimant brought a complaint for unfair dismissal. The claim is denied by the
respondent.
Issues for the Tribunal
2. The Tribunal identified the following issues
(a) what was the reason for the claimant’s dismissal?
(b) if the reason was potentially fair, was that dismissal unfair in
terms of section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA
1996)?
(c) would a fair dismissal have resulted from a different procedure,
and if so what appropriate reduction in compensations should be
made?
(d) was the claimant provided with terms of conditions in terms of
section 1 of ERA 1996
(e) had the claimant contributed to the dismissal?
(f) has the claimant minimised her loss losses?
(g) what, if any, is the extent of the claimant’s losses?
In addition, the tribunal required to consider what, if any, remedy the claimant is entitled
to.
Evidence
3. The Tribunal heard evidence from the claimant, and the claimant’s mother Helen
McMahon. The respondent gave evidence on his own behalf.
4. The respondent is a sole legal practitioner operating in Kilwinning who acted on
his own behalf who also gave evidence on his own behalf.
4103392/2018 Page 3
5. The Tribunal was also referred to sets of documents prepared by the claimant’s
representative and Mr Finlayson and which were updated in advance of the
continued hearing dates.
6. Both the claimant and Mr Finlayson provided written and supplementary oral
closing submissions.
Findings in fact
7. The claimant was employed from 4 August 2015 to 24 November 2017 as a
typist/receptionist within the respondent’s legal practice in Kilwinning, Ayrshire
situated approximately ¾ of a mile away from her home. The claimant cannot
drive. The claimant is, now, a lone parent with primary caring responsibilities for
her 4 school age or younger children being 14,11 7 and 2. Since the birth of her
4th child in 2016 the claimant has not worked outside Kilwinning.
8. The respondent operated as a sole practitioner with a high street legal practice
focused on family and other legal disputes. The respondent is an experienced
court practitioner. The respondent employed his wife Joan Finlayson as office
administrator overseeing the day to day operation of the legal practice. In
addition, he initially employed the claimant together with Shirley Boyd who
carried out similar role to the claimant, Rosa Mckay an audio typist together with
a trainee solicitor. The claimant’s secretarial work included occasional typing of
the respondent’s dictation on the firm’s family law cases however she has no
specific knowledge in this area.
9. Although the claimant had been employed since 4 August 2015 she had not be
provided with written terms and conditions of employment. While not in dispute
the claimant understood she was employed from 9am to 5pm with a lunch break
and worked Monday to Friday each week, no written terms set this out. There
was no policy notifying employees on any mechanism for reporting sickness
absences. There was no written guidance provided as to what information the
respondent considered it may reasonably require for the purpose of determining
the duration of any period of entitlement to sickness pay (whether Statutory Sick
To continue reading
Request your trial