St. Andrews Parish Church, Church of Scotland, Inverurie
Case Summary
The employment tribunal dismissed Agnieszka Myszkowska’s unfair dismissal claim against St. Andrews Parish Church, Church of Scotland, Inverurie, as the judge found that the respondent had conducted a fair investigation and the CCTV evidence supported their case.
Key Issues
- •inadequate investigation by the respondent
- •inaccurate CCTV evidence
- •claimant's claim of not working contracted hours
Claim Types
Cited Laws and Legal Issues
he employment tribunal dismissed Agnieszka Myszkowska’s unfair dismissal claim against St. Andrews Parish Church, Church of Scot
Decision Text
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4100752/2025 Hearing held in Aberdeen on Monday 18 August 2025 Employment Judge N M Hosie A Myszkowska Claimant In Person St. Andrews Parish Church , Church of Scotland , Inverurie Respondent Represented by: Mr D Di Paola Solicitor JUDGMENT OF THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL The Judgment of the Tribunal is that the claim is dismissed. REASONS Introduction 1. Agnieszka Myszkowska claimed that she was unfairly dismissed by the respondent, St. Andrews Parish Church of Scotland, Inverurie (“the Church”) where she had worked as a cleaner for a number of years. The respondent admitted the dismissal but claimed that the reason was conduct, “gross misconduct” and that it was fair. The claimant was contracted to work 20 hours per week. The respondent maintained that she had not worked her contracted hours but she had still claimed her full pay. The claimant maintained that the respondent’s investigation was inadequate, that the CCTV relied upon to establish when she was at work was inaccurate and that the respondent had not followed a fair procedure. 4100752/2025 Page 2 The evidence 2. I first heard evidence on behalf of the respondent from:- • Reverend Carl J Irvine, who took the decision to dismiss the claimant. • Mrs Kristine (“Kit”) Pawson, an Elder of the Church and Session Clerk at the time, who attended the disciplinary hearing. 3. I then heard evidence from the claimant. 4. The claimant submitted a bundle of documents (“C”) as did the respondent (“R”). The facts 5. Having heard the evidence and considered the documentary productions, I was able to make the following findings in fact. The claimant commenced her employment as a cleaner with the respondent on 26 August 2016. Her contract of employment was one of the documentary productions (R33-42). Although the contract records her normal hours of workas 15 h...
Employer
Employment Details
- Industry
- null
- Representation
- Litigant in person
Case Details
- Case Number
- 4100752/2025
- Decision Date
- 28/08/2025
- Published
- 10/12/2025
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- N M Hosie