Case 2300292/2021 · Employment Tribunal

In person For the v Respondent — 2022

Case reference: 2300292/2021
Decision date: 8 October 2022
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge P Klimov

Indexed: 22 May 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

In person For the

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The claimant, a bus driver reemployed from 18 December 2018 on different terms after an earlier ill-health dismissal, brought claims for unlawful deduction from wages and unfair constructive dismissal. The tribunal found that he had accepted the new GDC4 terms, that his previous CD04 grade had been closed, and that his asserted expectation of moving back to the old grade arose from conversations with his union representative and Mr Trayner rather than from any contractual entitlement.

On the wages claim, the tribunal applied the statutory approach to wages being "properly payable" under s.13 ERA 1996 and concluded that the claimant had not shown a legal entitlement to pay on the old grade or to the other sums he sought. The claimant accepted in cross-examination that the respondent had paid him everything due under his contract of employment, so the unlawful deduction from wages claim was dismissed.

On constructive dismissal, the tribunal applied s.94 and s.95 ERA 1996 and the Western Excavating test. It found no fundamental breach by the respondent in arranging a fact-finding meeting and then a disciplinary hearing over dangerous driving allegations, and it found that the claimant resigned because he and his union representative expected that the hearing was likely to result in dismissal. His later attempts to retract the resignation did not change that conclusion, and the constructive dismissal claim was dismissed.

After dismissing the claims, the tribunal considered costs under Rule 39(5) and Rule 76 of the ET Rules. It held that the claimant had acted unreasonably in continuing to pursue claims that had been the subject of a deposit order and that he had not put forward evidence to support the allegations he was required to prove. Taking account of his limited means, the tribunal ordered him to pay £6,000 towards the respondent's costs, made up of £3,000 counsel's fees and £3,000 solicitors' fees, and directed that the £200 deposit should count towards settlement of that order.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unlawful deduction from wages	The claim was advanced on the basis that the claimant should have remained on or been returned to his old CD04 grade, with references also made to holiday pay. The tribunal found he had accepted the new GDC4 terms on reemployment and had no legal entitlement to the sums claimed.	Dismissed	—	—
Constructive dismissal	Pleaded as unfair (constructive) dismissal. The tribunal found no fundamental breach by the respondent and held that the claimant resigned because he expected dismissal in the disciplinary process.	Dismissed	—	—

Remedy

Monetary award

Total award: £6,000; across all upheld claims

Legal tests applied

9 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.