In person For the v Mr P Maratos - Consultant — 2021

The tribunal held that the only live claim was one of automatic unfair dismissal under section 104 ERA 1996. The claimant had less than two years' service, so he could not bring an ordinary unfair dismissal claim, and he therefore had to show that the dismissal was because he had asserted a statutory right. The tribunal recorded that the respondent accepted it had been in breach of contract in relation to pay, tax, National Insurance and pension deductions, and accepted that the claimant had raised those matters in good faith.

The tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed on 31 July 2021 by the respondent's letter of 29 July 2021, which said the company could not extend his employment and would treat 31 July 2021 as his last day. It accepted that the employment relationship had broken down by that point. The tribunal also found that the claimant had resigned only as a director, not as an employee, and that the respondent regarded board directorship as an integral part of the sales director role.

On causation, the tribunal found there was no trigger point showing that the claimant's complaints about unpaid wages, tax, National Insurance or pension contributions caused the dismissal. It noted that after the grievance of 18 May 2021 Mr Jago's replies were largely conciliatory and included offers of assistance, and that there was no adverse response to the claimant's good-faith assertions of statutory rights. The tribunal held that the significant turning point was the claimant's resignation from the board on 4 June 2021, after which the tone of correspondence changed and the respondent restricted his access and treated the matter as an impasse.

The tribunal rejected the respondent's later allegations of gross misconduct, including alleged upward bullying and unauthorised payments, describing them as without foundation and added after the event. It concluded that the respondent had dismissed the claimant because he had resigned as a board director, which the respondent considered to be part of the job, rather than because he had asserted statutory rights. The claim under section 104 ERA 1996 was therefore dismissed.