Mr A K Robson v Eric Roberts Contractors Ltd — 2022

The claimant brought a single unfair dismissal claim arising from events on 20 and 21 January 2021. The tribunal found that the respondent was a small surfacing company and that the claimant had been employed since 2011, becoming a director in October 2019. It accepted that the business was under pressure at the end of 2020 and that a meeting took place on 20 January 2021 with Mr Roberts, Mr Cox, Mr Grainger and Mr Gummow present.

The tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent’s witnesses on what happened in the small office on 20 January. It found that the claimant, not Mr Roberts, initiated the private discussion with Mr Roberts, said that if Mr Roberts was not happy with the way he was running the business he would go, and then brought Mr Grainger into a second short meeting. The tribunal found that Mr Roberts did not speak in either meeting and that, at most, he may have nodded once. It also found that the claimant himself raised redundancy and set out what he said he wanted on leaving.

The tribunal also found that the claimant prepared the 21 January 2021 termination letter in the name of Mr Roberts and presented it for signature the following day. It accepted Mr Roberts’ evidence that he signed it without reading it and did not know what it said. The tribunal found that the claimant did not prove that he was dismissed within s.95(1)(a) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, either during the meetings or by the letter. It also found there was no dismissal under s.95(1)(c), because the claimant did not resign in circumstances amounting to constructive dismissal and there was no fundamental breach by the respondent.

Because the claimant did not prove that he had been dismissed at all, the tribunal did not need to determine fairness under s.98(2) or s.98(4) beyond setting out the statutory framework. The unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed, and no remedy was awarded.