P Macpherson v C D Leisure (Glasgow) Ltd: 8000980/2025
JUDGMENT
Rule 22 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 No response has been presented to this claim and an Employment Judge has decided to issue the following judgment on the available material under rule 22:[1]The respondent has made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant’s wages and is ordered to pay the claimant the net sum of £31.71.[2]The claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and the respondent is ordered to pay damages to the claimant in the net sum of £393.00.[3]The respondent has failed to pay the claimant’s holiday entitlement and is ordered to pay the claimant the gross sum of £121.66. Date sent to parties 7 July 2025 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 8000980/2025 Held in Glasgow via Cloud Video Platform (CVP) on 13 October 2025REASONS
[1]The case called on 13 October 2025 for a CVP hearing to deal with the claimant’s claim for unfair dismissal under Section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.[2]The claimant attended in person. There was no appearance by the respondent.[3]The background to this claim is that the claimant lodged an ET1 with the Employment Tribunal on 23 April 2025. In her ET3 the claimant set out that she was employed by the respondent as a Head Chef and was employed between the dates of 6 January 2025 and 7 March 2025. The claimant ticked the boxes on her ET1 for unfair dismissal and for notice pay, holiday and other payments. The claimant asserted in the ET1 that she was dismissed over whatsapp for asking for payment of her wages. She set out a claim for 8.69 hours of holiday pay, a payment in lieu of notice and to be paid for unexplained deductions from her payslip. She also sought compensation for the time incurred in making her claim through ACAS and the stress and anxiety of trying to get money from her employer.[4]The respondent did not enter an appearance.[5]By letter of 4 June 2025 the Employment Tribunal notified the claimant that she did not have the two years’ service which is normally required for the Tribunal to hear a claim of unfair dismissal in terms section 108(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and that, the ET1 does not, on the face of it, plead a claim of “automatic” unfair dismissal for which the two year rule is disapplied. The claimant was invited to state whether she was claiming automatic unfair dismissal. By e mail of 17 June 2025 to the Employment Tribunal the claimant confirmed that she wanted to make a claim for automatic unfair dismissal on the basis that she was dismissed on the spot for demanding payment of her wages. The claimant also provided information in relation to her holiday pay, notice pay and unlawful deductions.[6]By letter of 23 June 2025 the Employment Tribunal confirmed that they would issue a judgment in respect of the holiday pay, notice pay and unlawful deductions (this was done on 7 July 2025). The claimant was asked if she wished to continue with her claim of unfair dismissal. She confirmed that she did.[7]The case was set down for a CVP hearing to consider the “automatic” unfair dismissal claim.[8]At the CVP hearing the claimant attended by phone only. She confirmed that she was happy to proceed despite having no video. During the course of the hearing the claimant lost voice contact but confirmed she was happy to proceed by text message. The claimant had sent in by e mail a number of copies of Whatsapp messages between her and the respondent. The claimant confirmed that she had worked at a pub in Rutherglen, Dr Gorman’s and was dismissed on 7 March 2025. She was due to be paid on 7th March 2025 and due to delays in being paid previously had sent messages to the respondent on 7 March 2025 seeking payment of her wages. There was an exchange of messages that culminated in the respondent dismissing the claimant for what they claimed was threatening behaviour.[9]Having reviewed the evidence I am satisfied that the claimant does not have any grounds to claim for “automatic” unfair dismissal. No case that would give rise to “automatic” unfair dismissal has been made out by the claimant.[10]I have accordingly dismissed the claim for unfair dismissal on the basis that the claimant does not have 2 years continuous service under Section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Date sent to parties 30 October 2025