Dundee manager fired over 'excessive' pothole repair spending wins £34,000 payout

A Dundee furniture company has been ordered to pay a former manager over £34,000 for unfair dismissal following accusations of “excessive spending” on pothole repairs.

The claimant, S Shaw, worked for Joinery and Timber Creations Ltd (JTC) for more than 24 years and rose to the position of transport manager before he was fired in January 2025.

Mr Shaw became embroiled in a disagreement over excessive spending on pothole repairs within the JTC factory yard in Dundee back in October 2024.

An employment tribunal heard how he had been instructed by the factory manager, Mr Freeman, to arrange repairs with contractor HB Roadways, which JTC had a “long-standing relationship” with.

Mr Shaw had not been told in advance to obtain quotes or check pricing, and the health and safety manager dealt with HB Roadways, but he had left the company.

In December 2024, during an accounts meeting, management raised concerns about how much was paid to HB for the repairs, and an investigation was ordered.

Mr Shaw was suspended on December 11, 2024, while his line manager, Ms Patterson, conducted an investigation. He was also sent a summary of the situation stating that there was an “excessive charge” for pothole repairs.

It added: “We are concerned that this could be regarded as an inappropriate use of company funds. As you were responsible for this spend, we have decided to investigate the matter more fully.”

The invoices in October and November 2024 totalled £10,710 and £10,650, respectively.

Ms Patterson interviewed several employees and eventually concluded Mr Shaw had done nothing wrong and that the issue was due to “deficiencies in authorisation procedures” at JTC.

She was then removed from the investigation and did not author the report, which was put together by others.

Mr Shaw was unaware that his line manager had concluded that he had done nothing wrong during a January 2025 hearing with the company director, Mr Mulholland (DM).

At the meeting, several allegations were made against Mr Shaw, including that he denied having had prior contact with HB and that he had deleted messages to the contractor.

The tribunal stated: “The claimant was very upset at what DM told him and said to DM he shouldn’t come any closer to him, or he would “knock his block off” or words to that effect.

“The claimant had recently suffered a family bereavement, and the January 22 was the anniversary of his mother’s death.

“He was very emotional on the day and felt that he was being very badly treated by the respondent after 24 years’ service.”

Mr Shaw’s attempts to appeal his dismissal were denied.

Judge Jones found JTC’s investigation process defective and accepted Ms Patterson’s view that the company’s authorisation processes were lacking.

The tribunal was critical of the extent of HR manager Ms Shand’s involvement in the suspension, investigation, disciplinary and appeal processes and described her as a “guiding hand”.

The company director was said to be under the impression that the report provided to him was authored by Ms Patterson, who had carried out the investigation, when it was not.

The tribunal found he was unaware that Ms Patterson’s actual conclusion had been that Mr Shaw had done nothing wrong.

This meant he entered the disciplinary hearing without important information that could have supported Mr Shaw’s case.

The judge also noted the appeal hearing was “no more than a tick box exercise”.

Their ruling stated: “The respondent had come to a view at an early stage that too much money had been spent with HB and that someone had to be to blame for that.

“A narrative was created that it must have been the claimant, and after LP had indicated that she did not believe that the claimant had done anything wrong, the respondent sought to interpret any evidence it had before it in such a way as to prove the claimant’s guilt rather than consider that evidence with an open mind.

“The decision to dismiss the claimant was both substantively and procedurally unfair.”

JTC argued that Mr Shaw’s compensation should be reduced because he would have been fired even with a fair process.

The tribunal rejected that argument, as there was no evidence of misconduct or wrongdoing and Mr Shaw would have likely been exonerated.

The company also argued that Mr Shaw’s conduct had contributed to his dismissal, but the tribunal rejected that argument, finding he had followed established procedures.

The company was ordered to pay Mr Shaw £14,350 in compensation, £500 of loss of statutory rights and a compensatory award of £19,476.

Joinery and Timber Creations Ltd have been approached for comment.