Case 1600167/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T McGuinness and v Hughes Bros (Llanrwst & Trefriw Limited) t/a Alpine Travel — 2022
- Case reference
- 1600167/2021
- Decision date
- 14 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Havard Members
- Venue
- Cardiff via CVP
- Panel members
- Ms J Kiely, Ms R Hartwell
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T McGuinness and
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr T McGuinness worked for Hughes Bros (Llanrwst & Trefriw Limited) t/a Alpine Travel from 2 June 2015 as a home-to-school PCV driver. The tribunal found that he was issued with a contract of employment, that the contract contained terms permitting changes to the frequency of pay on reasonable notice and requiring drivers to undertake CPC training, and that the respondent was not aware that he was also working for M&H Coaches during the material period.
During the first phase of the Covid-19 pandemic, the respondent furloughed the claimant, sent staff a series of updates, and asked drivers to complete online training with reimbursement on production of a receipt. The tribunal found that the request was reasonable, that the payroll mistakes made by Mr Owens were honest errors that were corrected promptly, and that the move from weekly to monthly pay was contractually permitted and supported by two months' notice. It also found that the proposal to reduce pay by 20% was only a proposal designed to avoid redundancies and was never implemented.
The tribunal rejected the claimant's case that he refused to return to work because of health and safety concerns. It found that risk assessments and return-to-work documents were sent out, that he was told the new procedures would be explained to him on arrival, and that he was in fact working extensive hours for M&H Coaches during the same period. It concluded that his absence from October and November 2020 was unauthorised, so he was not entitled to wages while absent and was not entitled to payment of accrued but untaken holiday at termination.
The claimant resigned on 17 November 2020 and later confirmed that resignation on 7 December 2020. The tribunal held that the respondent's conduct, whether considered individually or cumulatively, did not amount to a repudiatory breach of contract, that the section 44 ERA 1996 detriment claim failed, and that the claims for breach of contract and unlawful deduction from wages were also dismissed. The judgment recorded that the claimant had received three weekly salary payments in September 2020 totalling £460 during the pay-transition period, but no monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The claimant alleged repudiatory breach through training requirements, payroll errors, the move from weekly to monthly pay, a proposed pay reduction, failure to issue a new contract, and non-payment in October and November 2020. The tribunal found that none of those matters, alone or cumulatively, amounted to a repudiatory breach and dismissed the unfair constructive dismissal claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Section 44 ERA 1996 detriment claim based on Covid-19 health and safety concerns and refusal to return to work. The tribunal found the respondent had put in place risk assessments and safety measures, that the claimant's asserted belief in serious and imminent danger was not credible, and dismissed the claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal held that the respondent was contractually entitled to change pay intervals on reasonable notice, to require the agreed training and other duties, and to withhold pay while the claimant refused to attend work. It therefore rejected the breach of contract claim, including the complaint about unpaid wages and holiday pay for October and November 2020. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal accepted that the claimant was not paid from 1 October 2020 onwards and that no holiday pay was made on termination, but found his absence was unauthorised because he refused to return to work without reasonable excuse. It held he was not legally entitled to those sums and dismissed the deduction claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
11 references- s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996
- Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp
- Lewis v Motorworld Garages Ltd
- London Borough of Waltham Forest v Omilaju
- Malik v Bank of Credit and Commerce International
- Bournemouth University Higher Education Corporation v Buckland
- s.13 ERA 1996
- New Century Cleaning Co Ltd v Church
- s.44 ERA 1996(1A)
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- Polkey v A E Dayton Services Ltd
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.