Ivan Dixon v Eric Patrick Care Ltd — 2024

The claimant worked for Eric Patrick Care Ltd as a support worker from April 2013 on a zero-hours basis. The tribunal found there was no fixed pattern of shifts and no contractual obligation on the respondent to provide any minimum number of hours. It accepted that the claimant missed a shift on 27 February 2023 after misreading a WhatsApp message, but found there was no malicious plan to withhold work, and that the respondent later gave him short-notice work and training in March.

The tribunal found that on 19 March 2023 the claimant became angry when relieved from duty at Eldon Park, and that he swore at Ms Munroe and Mr Patrick and acted inappropriately. The respondent offered him alternative work at Church Street, then investigated his complaint about Ms Munroe and invited him to a disciplinary hearing. On 11 April 2023 the claimant told Mr Patrick that he could not work for the respondent unless the disciplinary was stopped; Mr Patrick later emailed recording that the claimant said he no longer wished to work for EP Care. The claimant did not rebut that email, and when he collected his belongings on 4 May he said he did not want to work for people he regarded as liars.

The tribunal held that the claimant resigned with immediate effect on 11 April 2023, so there was no dismissal by the employer and the unfair dismissal claim failed. In the alternative, the constructive dismissal claim also failed because the respondent was not contractually bound to provide shifts, it was not shown to be aware of a sick pay claim before 11 April, and the disciplinary process, although not fully compliant with the ACAS Code, was not found to be so fundamentally unfair as to amount to a repudiatory breach. No remedy was awarded.