Case 1800293/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Hobson v Energas Ltd Heard by CVP 24 May 2022 — 2022
- Case reference
- 1800293/2022
- Decision date
- 27 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rogerson Members
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Hobson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr P Hobson was employed by Energas Ltd from 26 May 2014 as an Internal sales/Stores/Driver at the Sheffield depot. The tribunal found that his role was a multi-function role and that, although he preferred to drive and was often accommodated in that preference, he knew throughout his employment that he could be required to work in the warehouse, yard and sales areas according to business need and cover arrangements.
The tribunal rejected the claimant's case that Mr Mike Kassim's conduct from 2020 onwards amounted to a repudiatory breach of contract or a breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence. It found that the March 2020 intervention about sending the claimant home was a reasonable correction of a misunderstanding after a company briefing, that enquiries about furlough pay and welfare calls during Covid absence were made for proper reasons, and that the claimant's evidence about alleged threats was less reliable than the respondent's. It also found that he did not treat those incidents as threatening at the time and continued working afterwards without resigning.
The decisive event was the claimant's resignation on 2 August 2021, after he was told that an agency driver would cover for the summer holiday period for two to three months. The tribunal accepted the contemporaneous email evidence that he said he could not stand being in the warehouse and yard for that period and wanted a driving-only role. It concluded that he resigned by personal choice because he only wanted to drive and not perform the other parts of his job, rather than in response to any employer breach, and therefore his constructive unfair dismissal claim failed. The tribunal also found that he unreasonably failed to raise a grievance before resigning, contrary to the ACAS Grievance and Disciplinary Code (2015).
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The claimant's complaint of constructive unfair dismissal was found not well founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- section 95(1)(c) ERA 1996
- Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp
- Malik v Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA
- Omilaju v Waltham Forest London Borough Council
- Kaur v Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust
- ACAS Grievance and Disciplinary Code (2015)
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.