Scott-Davies v Redgate Medical Services

Factual and Procedural Background

This case concerns the availability of remedies to a person with less than one year's service whose employer did not operate the statutory grievance and disciplinary procedures and failed to provide written particulars of contract. The parties are referred to as the Claimant and the Respondent. The Claimant appealed a decision by the Employment Tribunal Chairman at Bristol Employment Tribunal, which declined jurisdiction to hear free-standing complaints of failure to follow statutory procedures. The appeal was registered and heard because it raised reasonably arguable points. The Claimant represented himself, and the Respondent was represented by counsel.

The Claimant was dismissed before completing one year of service with Company A and was therefore excluded from bringing a claim of unfair dismissal under the Employment Rights Act 1996. The Claimant contended that if he had been allowed access to proper procedures and received written particulars of his contract, he might not have been dismissed. The central issue was whether free-standing rights exist to make complaints about these matters.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether a person with less than one year's service has a free-standing right to bring complaints about an employer's failure to follow statutory grievance and disciplinary procedures.
2. Whether a failure to provide written particulars of employment contract gives rise to a claim for compensation or any other remedy beyond a reference to an Employment Tribunal.
3. Whether the statutory grievance procedures apply to employees excluded from unfair dismissal claims due to insufficient length of service.
4. The scope and application of section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 in relation to claims lacking an underlying valid claim.

Arguments of the Parties

Claimant's Arguments

• The Claimant argued that failure to provide access to statutory procedures and to give written particulars of contract caused unfairness and dissatisfaction.
• He sought recognition that the procedures should have been followed and impliedly compensation or remedy for the breach.
• The Claimant acknowledged no monetary claim was available for breach of the written particulars requirement but sought enforcement of procedural rights.

Respondent's Arguments

• The Respondent argued that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hear free-standing complaints of failure to comply with statutory grievance and disciplinary procedures where there is no underlying valid claim.
• They maintained that statutory grievance procedures apply only where there is a valid claim, such as unfair dismissal after one year’s service, which was absent here.
• Section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 does not create jurisdiction to bring free-standing complaints but only adjusts awards in valid claims.
• The Respondent highlighted that no compensation is available for failure to provide written particulars under section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, only a reference procedure.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analysed the statutory framework surrounding grievance procedures and written particulars of employment. It noted that under section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, employers must provide written particulars within two months, but the remedy for breach is limited to a reference to an Employment Tribunal without any compensation. This remedy does not require prior grievance procedures and is available only during employment and for three months thereafter.

The court emphasised that statutory grievance procedures under the Employment Act 2002 and related regulations apply only where there is a valid underlying claim, such as unfair dismissal after one year's service. Since the Claimant was dismissed before completing one year, he was excluded from bringing an unfair dismissal claim and thus had no valid claim to trigger the statutory procedures.

The court further explained that there is no statutory provision granting jurisdiction to Employment Tribunals to hear free-standing complaints about failure to comply with statutory procedures. The absence of specified time limits and remedies for such complaints confirms this. The court rejected the Claimant’s attempt to invoke section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 as it only adjusts awards where there is a valid claim and does not create new jurisdiction.

The court contrasted section 38 with other provisions that explicitly confer jurisdiction to bring complaints to tribunals, noting that section 38 imposes duties on tribunals to adjust awards rather than to entertain free-standing claims. The court also noted that a provision (section 30 EA) which might have allowed free-standing complaints had not yet come into force.

In sum, the court found that the Tribunal was correct to dismiss the Claimant’s free-standing claims for remedies based on failure to follow statutory procedures and failure to provide written particulars, given the absence of a substantive underlying claim.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED the Claimant's appeal against the decision refusing jurisdiction to hear free-standing complaints about failure to follow statutory grievance and disciplinary procedures and failure to provide written particulars of contract.

The direct effect is that employees with less than one year's service who lack a substantive claim, such as unfair dismissal, do not have a free-standing right to bring complaints about non-compliance with statutory grievance procedures or failure to provide written particulars beyond the limited remedies set out in statute. No new precedent was created beyond affirming the existing statutory framework and the limits of tribunal jurisdiction in such cases.