Case 1401285/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Luck v Hanson Quarry Products Europe Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 1401285/2019
- Decision date
- 8 July 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hargrove Members.
- Venue
- Exeter
- Panel members
- Ms W Richards Wood, Mrs M Rowntree
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Luck
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal rejected the claimant's case that his contractual working week had become 50 hours or that contractual sick pay had to be calculated by reference to 50 hours. It found that the 2016 change to his role and pay was notified in writing, that the South West 50-hour arrangement was a guarantee only where drivers made themselves available for extra work, and that contractual sick pay under the Pay and Conditions Agreement remained based on 39.5 hours. The unlawful deductions claim therefore failed for the period up to 28 January 2019, although the tribunal noted that the respondent later paid £3,355.79 after the grievance process and continued sick pay until 19 September 2019.
The victimisation claim, based on the claimant's support for Sarah Luck's sex discrimination claim, was dismissed. The tribunal found no sufficient causal link between any protected act and the respondent's conduct: the October 2018 wig-and-hard-hat incident justified disciplinary investigation, and the later return-to-work and pay decisions were taken for reasons connected with the claimant's medical position and the occupational health and DVLA information, not because the respondent believed he would support his daughter's claim. The age discrimination claim was withdrawn in closing submissions.
The tribunal upheld the constructive unfair dismissal claim. It found that, by at least 23 August 2019 and certainly by the 9 September return-to-work meeting, the claimant was ready, willing and able to return to work, that the respondent wrongfully refused to accept that position, stopped his pay, and threatened discipline if he did not sign a statement about notifying the DVLA. Those steps amounted to a repudiatory breach of the contract and the implied term of trust and confidence, the claimant resigned in part because of them, and dismissal was not for capability or some other substantial reason. On Polkey, the tribunal assessed a 25% chance that employment would have ended within six months anyway. The section 38 written-statement claim was not well-founded because the tribunal accepted the 2016 letter likely enclosed the relevant documents and noted that permanent employment does not require a fresh written statement. No final monetary award was set, and the tribunal directed the parties to say whether a remedies hearing was required.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | Constructive unfair dismissal was held well-founded. The tribunal found the respondent wrongfully refused to accept that the claimant was ready, willing and able to return to work, stopped his pay, and threatened discipline if he did not sign the DVLA statement; those matters were a repudiatory breach of contract and the implied term of trust and confidence. The dismissal was not found to be for capability or some other substantial reason, and the tribunal assessed a 25% Polkey chance that employment would have ended within six months in any event. | Upheld | — | — |
| Victimisation | The tribunal rejected the contention that the respondent acted because it believed the claimant had done, or would do, a protected act in support of Sarah Luck's sex discrimination claim. It found no sufficient causal link between the alleged protected act and the disciplinary, pay, or return-to-work decisions, and said the wig-and-hard-hat disciplinary matter was not victimisation. The tribunal also noted that the disciplinary complaint about that incident was presented out of time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal rejected the claim that sick pay should have been calculated by reference to a 50-hour week and found the contractual sick pay provisions were based on 39.5 hours, with no proved local variation. The claim succeeded only for the period from 23 August 2019 to the claimant's resignation, when the tribunal found he was entitled to be paid after the respondent wrongly refused his return to work. The judgment records a grievance-stage payment of £3,355.79, but no final tribunal award is quantified in this liability judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Age discrimination | The claimant's age discrimination claim was withdrawn in closing submissions and was not determined on the merits. |
Legal tests applied
9 references- Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp
- Malik v BCCI implied term of trust and confidence
- s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996
- Nagarajan causation test
- Shamoon detriment test
- s.136 Equality Act 2010 burden of proof
- Igen Ltd v Wong guidelines
- Polkey test
- Braganza principle
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.