Mr Adam Tinsley v DNA Vetcare Ltd — 2018

The claimant, Mr Adam Tinsley, was employed as lead surgeon at the Respondent's Mayow branch from 4 April 2016. The tribunal found that the Mayow practice was often understaffed, that the £13,000 weekly target was set for a two-vet practice and was not adjusted when staffing levels fell, and that the claimant repeatedly raised concerns about long hours, lack of breaks, and workload. It accepted that between March and July 2018 the other vet was pregnant and unable to do all duties, and that from July 2018 she was on maternity leave, so there were many occasions when the claimant was working with only one vet or with short staffing in reception and nursing.

On constructive dismissal, the tribunal held that the Respondent was in repudiatory breach of the implied term of trust and confidence taken cumulatively. The matters relied on included the continuing pressure of the target, failure to manage staffing and diaries properly, criticism over the cancelled parrot house call, and the review meeting on 22 October 2018, where the claimant was given low scores with little or no explanation. The tribunal found the review to be unfair and irrational in the way the low scores were presented. It held that the claimant resigned on 26 October 2018 in response to the breach, without affirming it, so he was constructively dismissed and the dismissal was unfair. No potentially fair reason had been pleaded, and in any event the dismissal was not fair in all the circumstances.

The sexual orientation discrimination and harassment claims were dismissed. The tribunal found that Ms Baker did make comments about the claimant's partying or lifestyle after his 27 December 2017 sickness absence and again in October 2018, but it did not find that those comments were linked, expressly or implicitly, to his sexual orientation. It considered the Respondent's evidence about the CCTV footage of the review meeting to be inconsistent and said the footage had been suppressed, but it did not infer from that material that a discriminatory remark had been made. It concluded that the claimant's sexual orientation was irrelevant to what Ms Baker said and that the comments were not related to that protected characteristic.

On wages, the tribunal found that the claimant was entitled to gross pay of £5,963.67 for 1 October 2018 to 2 November 2018. It held that deductions for course fees beyond the lawful 50% position, for £325 described as unpaid leave hours already received, and for £240 relating to vehicle damage were unlawful, while the £1,875 deduction for holiday taken in excess of entitlement was lawful. The net unlawful deduction was £4,088.67. The tribunal also held that the claimant was entitled to one further week of notice pay under clause 35, but the overall remedy hearing for the unfair dismissal and remaining issues was deferred.