in person For the v Respondent — 2023

The claimant worked as an apprentice network engineer from 4 February 2022 until 26 May 2022. After lateness at Exeter training, allegations of private use of a company vehicle, a new joiners fact-finding meeting on 10 March 2022, suspension, and a disciplinary dismissal letter, he resigned before the dismissal took effect. The tribunal held that he was not constructively dismissed because the respondent was not in fundamental breach of contract: the grievance procedure exception applied to complaints tied to the disciplinary/new joiner process, the gross misconduct findings over vehicle use were open to the respondent, and the termination letter was a justified notice of dismissal rather than a blameworthy last straw.

The wrongful dismissal claim also failed because the claimant was not entitled to treat the contract as at an end and was not entitled to notice pay. The tribunal rejected the direct race discrimination allegations, accepting the respondent's explanations for the 3 March lateness dispute, the 10 March fact-find and suspension, the toilet welfare check, the grievance handling, and the dismissal notice. The race harassment allegations failed for the same reason: the conduct complained of arose from investigation of misconduct and was not related to race. Ms Jennifer O'Brien later investigated the grievance and partly upheld concerns about Mr Wills's tone and the lateness policy, but that did not make the earlier conduct discriminatory.

The direct age discrimination allegation based on Jordan Martin following the claimant to the toilet on 11 March 2022 was dismissed, the tribunal accepting that staff were concerned for the claimant's welfare. The indirect age discrimination claim failed because the claimant never clearly identified a PCP, the grievance policy applied to all employees, and the claim was also out of time; the tribunal refused to extend time as just and equitable. On money claims, the tribunal awarded £225.23 for 11 hours' overtime/travel pay at 1.5 times the hourly rate, but dismissed the holiday pay claim because the respondent's payment of 64.03 hours, or 8.56 days, exceeded the holiday accrued on the tribunal's calculation under regulation 14.