Case 1401779/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Nick Mackenzie v Joyners Plants Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 1401779/2022
- Decision date
- 12 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M. Salter Representation
- Venue
- Exeter
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Nick Mackenzie
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that when Nick Mackenzie returned from Yeovil to Newton Abbot he returned to the same role he had left, on the same pay and within the same WhatsApp groups. It rejected his case that he had been demoted to retail assistant, and it also rejected his allegation that he was instructed to do spraying in unsafe conditions on 16 April 2022. The tribunal preferred Mr Windsor's evidence that he arrived late, that customers were already present, and that spraying could not safely be done at that point.
The tribunal accepted that the 19 April 2022 meeting was unsatisfactory, but found it was an investigatory meeting arising from the events of 16 April rather than a disciplinary hearing. It found that the respondent had cause to convene the meeting, that the outcome was to be communicated later, and that the claimant was not asked to continue the meeting in the car park as he alleged. Applying the implied term of mutual trust and confidence and the constructive dismissal authorities it cited, the tribunal held that the respondent had not acted in a way calculated or likely to destroy or seriously damage the employment relationship.
The constructive dismissal claim was therefore dismissed. The tribunal noted that, if it had needed to decide the remaining elements, it would have found that the claimant resigned in response to the alleged breaches, did not delay too long, and that the respondent would not have established a fair dismissal on these facts.
On the financial claims, the tribunal rejected the 13.5 hours unpaid wages claim because the respondent's time-recording system and payslips supported its case that the claimant had been paid in accordance with its timings. It also rejected the challenge to the £357 deduction for training fees, finding that the signed training agreement authorised deduction of the course fees and that the deduction was made in writing before it was taken. The holiday pay claim succeeded: the tribunal held that accrued but untaken leave at termination had to be paid under regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998, that regular overtime could be included in the calculation, and that the claimant was entitled to 9 hours holiday pay amounting to £140.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | Constructive unfair dismissal claim based on alleged demotion, alleged health and safety instructions, and the 19 April 2022 meeting. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for 13.5 hours' pay in May and June; tribunal found the respondent had paid in accordance with its time records and payslips. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim arising from the £357 deduction for NPTC PA1/PA6 training fees; tribunal held the written agreement authorised deduction of the course fees. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Accrued but untaken holiday pay at termination; tribunal held holiday pay should be calculated by reference to hours actually worked and regular overtime, awarding £140 for 9 hours. | Upheld | — | £140 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £140
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
10 references- Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp
- Mahmud v Bank of Credit and Commerce International
- Amnesty International v Ahmed
- Working Men’s Club and Institute Union Ltd v Balls
- London Borough of Waltham Forest v Omilaju
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- s.13 ERA 1996
- regulation 14 Working Time Regulations 1998
- Bear Scotland Ltd v Fulton
- East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust v Flowers and others
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.