Mr A Vanburen v John Parker & Sons Ltd — 2019

Mr Vanburen was employed as Financial Controller from 1 November 2007 on a salary of £65,000. He undertook an MBA with the Open University from May 2014 with the respondent's funding under a training agreement requiring repayment of training costs if he left within three years after completion. By late 2016 and early 2017 the respondent had concerns about the timing of management accounts, staffing in the finance team, and the claimant's performance. The claimant then took work-related stress absence from February to March 2017.

The tribunal accepted that some of the events relied on by the claimant occurred, including the refusal of discretionary sick pay, the move to open-plan working, Mr Parker's angry telephone call on 30 March 2017, and the lengthy email of 31 March 2017 referring to performance, possible reduction of responsibilities and a possible end to the relationship if no suitable role could be found. However, it held that these matters, whether considered individually or together, did not amount to a repudiatory breach or to conduct likely to destroy or seriously damage trust and confidence. The tribunal found the respondent had reasonable and proper cause to raise performance and workload issues, that the sick pay policy was discretionary and the claimant's attendance record placed him outside the usual criteria, and that the allegations about withdrawal of MBA support and related expenses were not made out as the claimant contended.

The tribunal found that the claimant resigned on 11 April 2017 in response to a wider course of events, but that he was not constructively dismissed. His unfair dismissal claim therefore failed, and the wrongful dismissal claim also failed because there was no dismissal. The unlawful deduction of wages claim was dismissed because it stood or fell with the training-agreement dispute and was not well-founded.

On the respondent's counterclaim, the tribunal held that the training agreement was part of or connected with the employment contract, was enforceable, and was not a penalty. The MBA was voluntary, the claimant had himself proposed employer funding with repayment terms, and the clause reflected the respondent's legitimate interest in recovering a substantial training investment. The tribunal held that the repayment term was triggered when the claimant left before the end of the post-completion period, and it ordered him to pay the respondent £10,424 for course fees and associated study-day costs.