Case 2302466/2021 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2022
- Case reference
- 2302466/2021
- Decision date
- 2 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Siddall
- Panel members
- Ms S Khawaja, Ms S Goldthorpe
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the claimant was an employee from the start of the relationship in November 2020. It relied on the written offer of employment, the promised benefits, the employee handbook, the timesheets describing him as an employee, and the reality of the working arrangements. It rejected the respondent's case that a change to CIS/self-employed status had been agreed a few days after he started, finding there was no written document confirming any such change and that the claimant understood CIS only as a mechanism to get paid.
The tribunal held that the respondent committed multiple breaches of contract: it did not provide the promised pension and private medical insurance, did not provide paid annual leave as promised, denied sick pay before later paying it, failed to issue a contract of employment, and unilaterally treated the claimant as a contractor. Those matters were treated cumulatively as a repudiatory breach. The tribunal accepted that the claimant resigned on 1 April and 7 April 2021 because he had realised he was not being treated as an employee and was not going to receive the benefits he had been promised, so he was constructively dismissed.
The automatic unfair dismissal claims under section 100 and section 104 ERA 1996 were dismissed. On section 100, the tribunal found the claimant had not established that he raised significant health and safety concerns, refused work, left the workplace, or took protected steps within the statutory provisions. On section 104, it found that the February 2021 SSP/CIS correspondence was not an assertion of a relevant statutory right within section 104(4), and in any event there was no dismissal or detriment for that reason. The tribunal also said it could not conclude that any alleged health and safety concerns were the reason for dismissal.
The monetary awards were confined to contractual and wage claims. The tribunal awarded £454.34 for lost pension contributions, £267.55 for private medical insurance, £100.92 gross for unpaid overtime on 7 February 2021, and £1,696.21 gross for accrued but untaken annual leave under regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998. It recorded a total award of £2,519.02 gross and noted that the claimant had less than two years' service, so ordinary unfair dismissal was not available.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was constructively dismissed because the respondent cumulatively breached the contract by failing to honour the offer terms on pension, private medical insurance and paid annual leave, denying sick pay, failing to issue a contract of employment, and unilaterally treating him as a contractor. It found the claimant resigned in response to those breaches after raising the issues in April 2021. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal claim under section 100 ERA 1996. The tribunal found the claimant did not raise significant health and safety concerns in the way alleged, did not refuse work or leave the workplace within section 100, and had not shown dismissal for health and safety action. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal claim under section 104 ERA 1996. The tribunal held the February 2021 correspondence about SSP and CIS status was not an assertion of a relevant statutory right within section 104(4), and in any event there was no detriment or dismissal for that reason. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Award comprised £454.34 for lost pension contributions and £267.55 for private medical insurance. The tribunal found the respondent had promised those benefits in the offer of employment but did not provide them during employment. | Upheld | — | £722 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the claimant was owed overtime for three hours worked on 7 February 2021 and awarded £100.92 gross at £16.82 per hour. It rejected the argument that the respondent had been deducting an amount equivalent to employee national insurance contributions from his wages. |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,519
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
8 references- section 95(1)(c) Employment Rights Act 1996
- implied term of trust and confidence
- repudiatory breach
- section 100 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 104(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- regulation 14 Working Time Regulations 1998
- King v Sash Windows Workshop
- Smith v Pimlico Plumbers [2022] EWCA Civ 70
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe 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.