Ms J Brangan v Sports Turf Services Ltd: 8001570/2025

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND)

Case No 8001570/2025

Between

Ms J BranganClaimant

Sports Turf Services LimitedRespondent

Before

Employment Judge Hendry

Date 11 August 2026

JUDGMENT

[1]The claim for automatically unfair dismissal, by way of constructive dismissal, contrary to either sections 100(1)(d) or (e) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 not being well founded is dismissed.

[2]The claim for detriments on the grounds of having disclosed breaches of Health and Safety Regulations, contrary to section 44 of ERA not being well founded is dismissed.

[3]In relation to breaches of the Working Time Regulations 1998 the claim succeeds and the Tribunal finds that it is just and equitable for the respondent company to pay the claimant compensation in the sum of Two Hundred Pounds (£200) sterling for failure to provide uninterrupted breaks. ETZ4(WR)

[4]The claim for unlawful deductions from wages succeeds and the respondent company shall pay the claimant the sum of Sixteen Pounds and Twenty Five pence (£16.25).

[5]The breach of contract claim relating to overtime worked not being well founded is dismissed.

REASONS

[1]The claimant raised proceedings against her former employers in June 2025. She made claims principally that she had been automatically unfairly dismissed in terms of Section 100 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Her other claims were for breach of the Working Time Regulations (absence of breaks), Breaches of Health and Safety Regulations, Unlawful deductions from wages and breach of contract.

[2]The claims were opposed and the respondent company lodged an ET3 through their solicitors. However, there was no attendance on their behalf at the hearing. After making enquires and checking that the Notice of Hearing had been sent the hearing proceeded.

[3]The claimant gave evidence as did her mother Mrs Patricia Brangan.

Findings

[4]The claimant in the last few years decided to work in gardening and landscaping. This was a change from her previous stressful occupation in IT. She had some experience in Horticulture as she would often assist her father when she was younger in his work as a Horticulturalist. She describes herself a ‘Landscaper’ in the ET1.

[5]The claimant started work in this role with the respondent company on the 31 March 2025 based in Aberdeen and she resigned on the 6 April 2025.

[6]The respondent company provides landscaping and gardening services. They trade as ‘Easy Landscapes’.

[7]The claimant started work with the company The claimant was asked to work in the central belt for her first two weeks.

[8]On the 31 of March she was brought straight to the first site. Because the van broke down she went there directly and was not provided with any site risk assessment or PPE other than a loan of gloves. She noticed that her nose started running as soon as she started work. She put it down to hay fever but mentioned that she didn't usually have hay fever.

[9]The second job she did involved scarifying dead black moss from a lawn. It was picked up by the machine. Her co-worker Billy explained that they had put fertiliser and weed killer on the lawns recently. The claimant became worried about the chemicals that she was being exposed to when she finished her last job. She said to her co-worker that her nose had stopped running so that it did not seem like hay fever. She said that her eyes were sore. She was concerned that she was breathing in chemical residue. Billy said there was a first aid box in the van but no further action was taken.

[10]Her first tasks involved emptying the collection box on an industrial sized scarifier being used by a colleague. The scarifier would require to be emptied periodically whilst in use. She was given the task of emptying the scarifier box and taking the material uplifted and putting it in skips. It was hard and heavy work. She would occasionally bang her legs and knees on the metal box or on the wheelbarrow that she used.

[11]When taking the box from the machine for emptying she had to reach down close to the scarifier. The machine was noisy and kicked up loose material and grit. There was a lot of stoor. The machine was kept running during these tasks. She noticed that in the material collected there was dead moss and grass which she was told had been treated some time earlier with a fertiliser/weed killer. The claimant became concerned at the way in which the machine would blow this stoor into her face. The work was rushed. She did not receive interrupted breaks.

[12]The claimant became concerned about the health and safety aspects of working with the scarifier. She did not know which chemicals were being used in treating the moss. She was concerned that chemical residue might be being blown into her face. She asked the company about these matters and for PPE. Her contact was ‘George’. When interviewed for the post she had been told by ‘George’ that all PPE and work clothes would be provided ‘‘like a uniform’’. The claimant was told her role would be 7:00 AM to 5:30 PM in the summer and that it would balance out in the winter when there were less hours. He said that there was a 30 minute break and two 15 minute breaks. The claimant was advised that if she was away working then she would be paid from leaving home. She was told that the company found it hard to get workers.

[13]After the first day’s work the claimant was dropped at her hotel at 3:00 PM. She did not have a break that day. Billy her co-worker said that he preferred not to take breaks so that he could go home early. During that evening her eyes became progressively more sore and she felt weird and felt dizzy. The claimant developed a headache. She washed her eyes and went to Specsavers Opticians and got eye drops. She researched both her symptoms and the requirements for safety gear that evening. After this she messaged George to say that she had been injured and asked for suitable PPE. She mentioned goggles, a mask, a long sleeved top and gloves.

[14]On the second day she washed out her eyes and used eye drops. She was collected from the hotel and went to work. The claimant wore her own personal glasses when she got to site. When emptying the scarifier she tried to turn her head away from it and closed her eyes. She didn't feel safe. She felt stressed and unsafe. The claimant was concerned that she had not been given ear defenders or suitable gloves or appropriate PPE.

[15]The claimant was next asked to tidy cut grass using a blower machine. She was not given instructions as to how to use the blower. There was a harness that did not fit her. The claimant was asked to use it but not told what buttons to press. She was concerned about the risks involved in its use with no training.

[16]In the middle of the second day she was given some PPE . It consisted of gloves, a mask and goggles. The goggles were not enclosed. She said to the co-worker that they did not have any side protection. Nevertheless, she wore the PPE during the rest of the day but complained that the goggles were letting material into her eyes as they were not sealed. She asked Billy about the scarifying and her concern about chemicals. He said he had a stye in his eye that had been getting better when he was on holiday. He said he thought it was from exposure to the fertiliser in the dust caused by the scarifier. He also said that he was half deaf from the machinery. These remarks concerned her.

[17]That evening the claimant washed her eyes again but they were still sore. She once more tried to research her symptoms and safety concerns. She was concerned that she would lose her entitlement to Universal Credit if she left her work. She messaged them about the difficulties she was having. She told them that she had received some PPE and hoped it would be OK. The claimant was feeling very stressed about the whole situation.

[18]The claimant spoke to George and she requested better PPE .She told him about the situation. She explained that the goggles were not sufficient and she needed ear defenders. She said her ears were ringing. George replied that he did not think of ear defenders as Billy said she was using the blower not the scarifier. She told him that her eyes were still sore. She explained that the scarifier was noisy especially when her head was close to it and that she had found that she had bruises on her legs. George told her that he would get ear defenders. He said that the goggles she had suggested would not work as they would get ‘‘gummed up’’ inside.

[19]They later went to a shop for equipment. George said he would get trousers and gloves for her. In the shop George asked whether she wanted a snood as he thought that this might be better than a face mask or goggles. Later the claimant was told not to include the shopping time in her hours. She argued that it was work but he said that she could only put the hours at work. She lost £16.25 in wages which were not paid.

[20]The claimant remained concerned about the lack of breaks. She was given some casual clothes to wear by her colleague that he had borrowed. The claimant called her GP. She researched the use of safety goggles and her employment rates.

[21]The claimant felt that she couldn't feel safe in the job or the next job. On Thursday 3 April she started work. Her eyes were still sore. She was given safety boots. She returned to her hotel at 5:30pm and again she washed her eyes and used eye drops. She noticed that her fingertips were sore and she had pins and needles. She was liking the job but did not feel safe.

[22]On Friday 4 April the claimant washed out her eyes again and used eye drops. After the last job on Friday she mentioned to Billy that her eyes felt dusty. She was concerned about them and there was nowhere to clean her hands and wash her eyes. She used some eye drops. Once more she was concerned that there were no proper breaks. She felt stressed and unsafe and despite the new goggles she was still getting material in her eyes.

[23]At the end of the week the claimant was told that she wasn't needed the following week in the central belt as they had got through work more quickly than expected. There was going to be work to do in Aberdeen that week. The claimant was dropped off home at 7:30pm in Aberdeen.

[24]That weekend she was tired. She went to Specsavers again about her eyes. They did an eye test and said that her eyes looked dry but there was no scratches or damage. The claimant continued taking eye drops. She visited B&Q to look for safety goggles. She asked about safety gear and was told that they would recommend closed goggles for scarifying, and that they had some that would not fog up inside. She also asked a friend who worked in landscape gardening what safety gear should be worn when scarifying and he said safety goggles and boots. She noticed that her fingertips were still sore. She thought that this related to using the blower. She felt that she did not feel safe at work. The next work she would have to do was likely to be in various sites in Aberdeen such a bowling clubs. She had been told that they would be doing lawn cutting and hedge cutting. She did not know the height of the hedges but thought that ladders might be needed. She had lost trust in the company because of the issues around PPE. She was disturbed that she had not been shown her any risk assessments. She did not want to get a permanent injury. She felt belittled and dismissed about how she was treated when she raised concerns and she believed that the job was starting to eat away at her confidence. She believed that if she stayed it would get worse. The claimant messaged George that she had quit.

[25]The claimant was paid £13 per hour. She was not given appropriate uninterrupted breaks. She indicated that she had been underpaid for the period ‘shopping’.

[26]The claimant had worked overtime when she was in the central belt but had not wanted to. She had been paid for it. She believed that this was a breach of contract. Witnesses

[27]The claimant is an intelligent and able person. She gets anxious and ruminates about things that have occurred. She appeared to be a reasonably reliable witness in relation to recounting the history of matters accurately but at points I did not find her evidence particularly credible. She seemed to be unable to take an objective view of events. She seemed to give the respondent compony no credit for responding to her concerns by giving her ,belatedly, PPE. The claimant accepted that the tasks she was asked to carry out were straightforward and routine but still had a perception of them being very dangerous. I found her mother wholly credible and reliable. Her daughter had contacted her very regularly to discuss the up and downs of the work and she could say that it was apparent that she was upset and anxious. Submissions

[28]The claimant had carried out some research into her position as in the detailed papers that she had lodged indicated. She believed that she had been entitled to resign and that being belittled over her requests for PPE were a detriment. She had not refused to work overtime although she had not agreed to do it. This was she thought a breach of contract. She was entitled to compensation for the lack of breaks and to be paid for the time shopping. Discussion and Decision

[29]The principal claim was one for unfair dismissal. The claimant did not have sufficient qualifying service to raise a claim for ‘‘ordinary” unfair dismissal. She relied on Section 100 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 which states: “100. Health and safety cases(1) An employee who is dismissed shall be regarded for the purposes of this Part as unfairly dismissed if the reason (or, if more than one, the principal reason) for the dismissal is that— (a) having been designated by the employer to carry out activities in connection with preventing or reducing risks to health and safety at work, the employee carried out (or proposed to carry out) any such activities, (b) being a representative of workers on matters of health and safety at work or member of a safety committee— (i)in accordance with arrangements established under or by virtue of any enactment, or (ii)by reason of being acknowledged as such by the employer, the employee performed (or proposed to perform) any functions as such a representative or a member of such a committee, (c)being an employee at a place where— (i)there was no such representative or safety committee, or (ii)there was such a representative or safety committee but it was not reasonably practicable for the employee to raise the matter by those means, he brought to his employer’s attention, by reasonable means, circumstances connected with his work which he reasonably believed were harmful or potentially harmful to health or safety, (d)in circumstances of danger which the employee reasonably believed to be serious and imminent and which he could not reasonably have been expected to avert, he left (or proposed to leave) or (while the danger persisted) refused to return to his place of work or any dangerous part of his place of work, or (e)in circumstances of danger which the employee reasonably believed to be serious and imminent, he took (or proposed to take) appropriate steps to protect himself or other persons from the danger.” 27. During the Covid Pandemic this section came under scrutiny as it was used by the claimant to justify not returning to work or refusing to work in workplaces that had poor precautions against getting the virus. One of these cases was Rodgers v Leeds Laser Cutting Limited. It related to an employee who was dismissed after he refused to attend work due to Covid fears. The Court of Appeal in England addressed some of the issues relating to dismissals where there is danger. It suggested the following questions were addressed: “(1) Did the employee believe that there were circumstances of serious and imminent danger at the workplace? If so…..

(2) Was that belief reasonable? If so…..

(3) Could they reasonably have averted that danger? If not….

(4) Did they leave, or propose to leave or refuse to return to, the workplace, or the relevant part, because of the (perceived) serious and imminent danger?

(5) Was that the reason (or principal reason) for the dismissal?”

[30]The case reiterated that it is not enough for the employee to simply be worried or concerned. The tribunal has to examine whether the employee's belief that the danger was imminent was reasonable at the time they made their decision. The danger must be an immediate or impending threat to health or safety. It cannot be a vague, long-term, or hypothetical risk.

[31]In the present case the claimant had some legitimate concerns about the work she was doing in the days prior to her resignation. It seems as if these concerns were not being ignored and steps taken, insufficient in her view, to get better goggles/face mask for her. She resigned because the following week she was aware that she would be tidying gardens and bowling clubs and that this would most likely involve cutting hedges and possibly using ladders. However, because she was relatively new to the company she had not carried out these tasks before and could not say if they presented any obvious or serious dangers. She did not know what the tasks would involve and if working at heights was expected. I would observe that the sort of activities she described were such that she accepted were carried out regularly by ‘hobby’ gardeners. In short she was not aware where she would be working or what she would be doing or what the risks would be.

[32]In my view the circumstances show that she did not have a reasonable belief in serious and imminent danger. Any belief that she held could, not be said to be reasonable in that it was based firstly on supposition and secondly on being asked to carry out tasks that were not inherently dangerous and part of her normal expected duties as a gardener.

[33]I struggled to identify any detriments that the claimant had been subjected to. She complained about her concerns being dismissed or laughed at. Her evidence on these matters was not persuasive. She appeared overly sensitive about her employers response to her yet accepted that that they had responded positively on a number of occasions to try and get her appropriate PPE.

[34]The next claim is straightforward. I accepted that she had not been given uninterrupted breaks and that £200 was appropriate compensation for that. She had explained that there had on occasion been breaks but they were interrupted.

[35]Finally the claimant was upset that she had worked overtime when she had not really wanted to. She had not protested. She had ultimately worked that overtime and been paid. I struggled to decern a breach of any contractual term and in any event the claimant suffered no financial detriment having been paid overtime for her work.