A "high performing" manager at a Scottish recycling firm has won his case for constructive dismissal against an employer who was “overtly critical” of the government’s national lockdown.
Alex Cannon, a former warehouse boss at Re-Tek UK ltd in East Kilbride, has been awarded more than £11,000 by an employment tribunal following a dispute he said was sparked by his decision to work from home.
Mr Cannon refused to go into the office when the business closed for two months from March 20, 2020, during the first national Covid lockdown.
He told his employers that he wanted to adhere to the government’s strict work from home directive and avoid risking the health of his elderly father and severely disabled son.
He claimed the chairman of the firm, Kevin Culligan resented his approach and this led to a dramatic change in how he was treated by his employers when he returned to the office.
READ MORE: Boxer who suffered brain damage vows to fight on after tribunal decision
The tribunal was shown a staff email from Mr Culligan which was was “overtly critical of the UK government’s national lockdown strategy.”
Mr Cannon was said to be a highly performing employee, reflected in bonuses allocated to him each year.
In 2018 and 2019, he received £5000 for “exceptional performance”.
He was responsible for placing staff on furlough and a dispute arose over whether this applied to him.
He said he was continuing to work from home but his employer disagreed.
The hearing was told that during his period of absence from the workplace he continued to carry out duties including devising a shift pattern for the return of skeleton staff in May 2020.
This was accepted by employment judge Ronald Mackay.
READ MORE: Property firm sacked employee after miscarriage
Mr Cannon said his relationship with his employer changed when he returned to the work depot in July 2020 and he went from having almost daily verbal communication with Mr Culligan to “almost none”.
He claimed that when his father died his employer did not acknowledge it and failed to express any condolences.
Evidence was heard from Mr Culligan, managing director Gordon Lowrie and Natalie Hunter, an external HR Consultant.
The hearing was told that Mr Lowrie told Mr Cannon on “a number of occasions” that Mr Culligan wanted “rid of him”.
In September 2020, the warehouse manager discovered that his pay had been reduced from 37 hours per week to 35 hours without any discussion or consultation.
READ MORE: Civil servant who lied about 'bound and gagged' photo loses legal bid
He also saw a “substantial reduction” in bonus payments, receiving £750 in December of that year.
The hearing was told that duties he had previously been responsible for were taken off him including staff appraisals which were carried out that month.
Mr Cannon discovered in May 2021 that he had been awarded scores of 3 and 2 “retrospectively” representing mediocre or below average performance despite continuing to hit all his targets. He challenged this but was given no explanation for the low grades.
The hearing concluded that there was “nothing to suggest that he was performing inadequately”.
The claimant was described as a”credible and reliable witness.”
During the course of his employment, Mr Cannon had discussions about obtaining shares in the firma and it was agreed in 2016, that he should be allocated 5%.
In December 2020, he was advised by Mr Lowrie that this would no longer be happening.
He was invited to a meeting in April 2021 and told that responsibility for the management of 15 warehouse staff and service delivery was being transferred to another manager.
He was signed off work for stress and later resigned from the firm.
The tribunal ruled that the company had breached Mr Cannon’s contract and he was awarded £11, 935.
The judgment states: “A distinct change in approach to the claimant arose following the Covid shutdown.
“The Claimant clearly found it a difficult decision and regretted leaving a role which prior to the pandemic he had enjoyed, and in which he had performed very successfully.”
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here