Case 2304581/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Bartlett v W & H Motors — 2022
- Case reference
- 2304581/2020
- Decision date
- 11 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Atkins
- Venue
- London South Croydon
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Bartlett
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Mr Bartlett was employed as a coach driver by W & H Motors and that, on 24 March 2020, he said he would self-isolate with his wife, who was in a vulnerable category. The central dispute was whether his words at the end of that conversation, including 'call it a day', amounted to a resignation. The tribunal found those words ambiguous and held that they could refer to the end of the shift, the end of work for that day, self-isolation, or employment as a whole.
The tribunal relied on the respondent's own contemporaneous documents and evidence to conclude that the respondent did not regard the position as clear on 24 March 2020. The minutes of the management meeting on 27 March 2020 recorded that the claimant's position was 'unclear' and that the respondent awaited his letter of resignation. The tribunal rejected the evidence that Mr Heron had already confirmed to the claimant that he was retiring, and found that the respondent had not taken reasonable steps to clarify the claimant's position before treating his employment as ended.
The tribunal held that the letter sent on 6 April 2020 was the act that dismissed the claimant, because it told him his final pay had been processed and asked for the return of his equipment. It therefore upheld the unfair dismissal claim. It also found that the respondent had no fair basis to dismiss him, and rejected the respondent's argument that the claimant's own conduct justified dismissal or meant that there was no dismissal at all.
On notice pay and contract, the tribunal found that the claimant's contractual notice period was 12 weeks and that no payment in lieu of notice had been made. It held that there was no conduct serious enough to justify summary dismissal without notice, and found a breach of contract in relation to the unpaid notice period and employer pension contributions. Remedy was not decided in the liability judgment; the tribunal directed that a half-day remedy hearing be listed unless the parties said none was required.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found that the claimant did not resign or retire on 24 March 2020. It held that the words said at the time, including 'call it a day', were ambiguous, that the respondent itself treated his position as unclear at the time, and that the letter of 6 April 2020 amounted to a dismissal. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found that the claimant's notice period was 12 weeks, that he was not paid for that period, and that there was no serious incident entitling the respondent to dismiss without notice. The finding covered unpaid notice pay and employer pension contributions; remedy was left to a later hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- Societe Generale, London Branch v Geys
- Martin v Glynwed Distribution
- Mitie Security (London) Ltd v Ibrahim
- Sovereign House Security Services Ltd v Savage
- Kwik-Fit (GB) Ltd v Lineham
- East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation Trust v Levy
- Harris & Russell Ltd v Slingsby
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.