A worker has won more than £17,000 after being unfairly dismissed from a Glasgow recycling firm.
Mr P Burns worked as a driver for Recycled Packaging Ltd for 12 years before his relationship with his employers broke down in the wake of the covid pandemic when his hours were reduced.
An employment tribunal backed Mr Burns' allegations that he had his hours unlawfully reduced and was later unfairly dismissed. Recycled Packaging Ltd were ordered to pay £6,440 for the deduction of his wages and a further £10,732 for his unfair dismissal.
READ MORE: Glasgow Clyde Tunnel pothole blows out woman's tyre while out celebrating husband's birthday
Prior to the start of the pandemic, Mr Burns worked five days a week as a 'Class 2' driver at the company's Hillington depot. His work involved driving vehicles between the depot and client premises, both collecting and delivering recycled material. He was one of two 'Class 2' drivers employed by the firm.
Amid the coronavirus pandemic, Mr Burns' hours were cut to three days a week without prior consultation while the other 'Class 2' driver was placed on furlough. The letter confirmed the reduction was not due to his performance, adding: "As soon as there is a further demand for Class 2 rigid work, the company will be keen to increase your hours again".
The employment tribunal stated: "The claimant recognised the unprecedented circumstances at the time and accepted the respondent’s decision."
Mr Burns hours were then increased to four days a week in Autumn 2020 while the other 'Class 2' driver resumed full time work.
In December 2020, his work once again reduced due to a 'seasonal drop off' with Mr Burns' hours down to three days while the other Class 2 driver continued to work full time.
The tribunal reads: "Although the claimant had some concerns as to why he was being treated differently, he again accepted the change on the understanding that it was temporary and that he would revert to his full-time hours at some point in the future. There was no explanation as to why the claimant was not placed on part-time furlough leave once that became permissible under the relevant regulations."
In January 2021, Mr Burns was presented with a new draft contract stating that he worked three days per week. When he challenged this, no changes were made by the firm.
The tribunal states: "It was clear from the claimant’s subsequent actions that he did not accept a permanent reduction in working hours and as he stated, had he received the document, he would have challenged it."
It continues: "In an email of 21 December 2021, the claimant stated that he would like to know when he would resume a five-day week. By email of 21 December 2021, [general manager] Mr McGuigan replied to the effect that there was no scope to provide the claimant with any additional hours. He stated: 'We have you contracted as a Part Time member of staff …'."
Following this, Mr Burns raised a grievance in January 2022 and was invited to a meeting where he was "offered the right to bring a colleague or a trade union representative". When Mr Burns said he was not a member of a trade union and did not wish to bring a work colleague, but Mr McGuigan refused to "depart from the legal requirements regarding accompaniment."
Mr Burns was later invited to an "informal meeting" to "touch base and have a general catch up” but told an HR Business Partner would also be in attendance. When Mr Burns questioned this, he was told he was expected to attend, with the email stating "Are you saying you’re refusing to follow clear and reasonable instructions from management while you are at work?"
Mr Burns declined to attend, pointing to the "distinctly threatening tone" of the email. Following this, he was invited to a disciplinary hearing for the following reasons:
"(1) Refusing to carry out a reasonable request from management
"(2) Insubordination towards management within the company
"(3) Disregard for PPE within the workplace
"(4) General attitude towards work colleagues and management."
When he asked for evidence of these points, he was told they related to "emails surrounding the claimant’s refusal to attend the meeting and stated that there would also be CCTV footage relating to an event".
At the hearing in February 2022, Mr Burns attended alone as he felt he would be dismissed otherwise.
The tribunal states: "During the course of the meeting, it was clear that allegations 1, 2 & 4 all related to the same issue, namely the claimant’s refusal to attend the catchup meeting."
It continued: "The third allegation related to a failure on the part of the claimant to wear15 appropriate PPE (a high visibility outer jacket) when walking through the depot. He accepted that he had failed to do so. He also stated that others routinely did so."
When he asked why others were not facing disciplinary action for not wearing PPE, he was told "that was a different matter, and that the claimant should request a one-to-one with Mr McGuigan to discuss this."
When Mr Burns asked for the outcome of the hearing, he was told all four points had been held up, and given a final warning.
He later asked for a copy of the minutes, having recorded the meeting separately, unbeknownst to Mr McGuigan, and found "a number of discrepancies in the account".
The tribunal reads: "In particular, the claimant denied having admitted that he should have attended the informal meeting as requested. The tribunal was satisfied that the claimant20 did not make such a concession. It would have been odd for him to do so in circumstances where he had taken such a strong stance over a long period of time. The claimant concluded by tendering his resignation with immediate effect."
It continues: "Since the termination of his employment, the claimant has not worked at all.The respondent gave evidence of a number of opportunities that might have been suitable for the claimant and highlighted the general shortages in the market for drivers within different industries. The claimant’s position was that he did not feel able to apply for any alternative work due to his health. He stated that he had become a bit of a recluse.
"The respondent was aware that the claimant had suffered from depression in the past – to the extent that he was asked at a meeting in October 2018 if he had suicidal ideation."
The employment tribunal said they were "satisfied" with Mr Burns evidence, ordering Recycled Packaging Ltd to pay him the more than £17,000 in compensation.
The hearing states: "In framing the allegations, it sought to exaggerate the scope of misconduct alleged. Despite effectively conceding that three of the allegations all amounted to one thing, the respondent issued a warning which separated them without any basis for doing so."
It added: "The tribunal had serious misgivings about the respondent’s inconsistency as it related to the failure to deal with other self-evident breaches of health & safety from the CCTV footage which it relied upon to discipline the claimant. These factors point to the claimant being 'singled out' as he alleged."
READ NEXT:
Mum humiliated as Asda worker 'accuses her of buying five-year-old son a scratch card '
Family fears for Glasgow woman missing from home for six days
Glasgow mum thrown from bike into path of bus after hitting huge pothole
101-year-old Celtic fan dies after watching team play under every manager
Glasgow soup kitchen volunteer 'threatened' over sandwich dispute
