Mr J Hodge v Glassbox Trading Limited, T/A Aquatechniques — 2023

The claimant worked for the respondent from late September 2019 until January 2023 in fish tank maintenance. In mid-2022 he developed Mycobacterium marinum after an infected finger, was treated with high-dose antibiotics, and worked reduced hours. The respondent later moved him away from fish tank work and into pond construction because it was concerned about re-infection risk; a consultant's letter dated 24 January 2023 said there was no reason to think he was at higher risk, but that letter had not been shown to the respondent before the hearing.

The central issue was whether the claimant was dismissed or whether his employment ended by mutual agreement. Applying the authorities cited in the reasons, the tribunal preferred the respondent's account, supported by the 20 January 2023 letter referring to redundancy as the only viable option if the pond construction role was not acceptable, and by the fact that the claimant did not show the later consultant's letter to the respondent. It found that he chose the less bad option in difficult circumstances, but was not forced to end his employment. The unfair dismissal claim and the notice-pay claim therefore failed.

On holiday pay, the claimant accepted that he had been off sick for the first two working days of January but could not recall whether he had asked for those days to be treated as holiday. The tribunal found that explanation implausible in light of his evidence that reduced pay had left him financially stretched, and held that he had not proved on the balance of probabilities that holiday pay remained due on termination. All three claims were dismissed, and no tribunal award was made; the respondent said it had paid a sum equivalent to four weeks' pay on 3 March 2023.