In person For the v Respondent — 2024

The claimant brought a breach of contract claim arising from the termination of his employment on 7 September 2023. At the hearing he confirmed that he was not seeking compensation for the first five matters set out in the claim form, and that his claim for compensation related only to the sixth matter, which concerned the termination of employment. The tribunal also noted that he had raised concerns about bullying, but had not claimed compensation in respect of those allegations.

The tribunal accepted the relevant contractual background. The claimant had started work on 1 November 2021 as a Service Driver - 26T. His written contract provided for one week’s notice during the first year of employment and, thereafter, one week’s notice for each complete year of service, subject to a maximum of twelve weeks. The Employee Handbook said that the disciplinary, grievance and capability rules were not contractually binding, and the handbook also reserved the respondent’s right to pay notice in lieu.

On the facts found by the tribunal, the respondent held an absence welfare meeting on 7 September 2023, showed the claimant CCTV footage from 13 July 2023, and then dismissed him on notice by letter the same day. The tribunal found that, because the contract entitled the respondent to terminate on notice and to make a payment in lieu of notice, and because the claimant had less than two years’ service and was only entitled to one week’s notice, the respondent had lawfully terminated the contract. The tribunal therefore concluded that there was no breach of contract in relation to the termination itself.

The claim against Mr Keenan was struck out because the tribunal held that a breach of contract claim in the Employment Tribunal lies against the former employer, not an individual employee. The tribunal also referred to the rule that compensation for the manner of dismissal is not recoverable in a breach of contract claim, and it noted that the claimant did not have sufficient service to bring an unfair dismissal claim. No monetary award was made. The respondent’s costs application was not determined in this judgment; the tribunal directed that it should be dealt with on written representations.