Carl Göran Heintz v Summit Architecture Limited — 2022

The tribunal dealt only with the claimant's breach of contract claim for notice pay. The claimant's written contract, signed in August 2020, provided for one week's notice during the first three months of continuous employment and four weeks' notice thereafter. By the date of dismissal, his salary had increased from £35,000 to £40,000 gross per annum. It was common ground that he was given notice on or about 23 November 2021, worked for about one week, and his employment ended on 29 November 2021.

The tribunal accepted the claimant's case that he was contractually entitled to four weeks' notice and that he had not been paid for the remaining three weeks. It rejected the respondent's suggestion that concerns about the claimant's performance justified treating the matter as gross misconduct for contractual notice purposes. The tribunal found there had been no summary dismissal and that the respondent had acted on the mistaken view that the statutory minimum notice period on the UK Government website displaced the contractual term.

The tribunal awarded the claimant £2,304 gross as damages for the unpaid three weeks of contractual notice, with deductions for tax and national insurance to be made as necessary. It noted that the parties did not dispute the amount or the calculation. The tribunal also recorded that the claimant's remaining claims for unauthorised deductions of wages and/or breach of contract, relating to unpaid overtime, an unpaid severance payment and unpaid wages following an increase in pay, were adjourned to a further CVP hearing on 1 February 2023.