Mr Dean Woodbridge v Blease Landscapes Limited — 2021

Mr Woodbridge worked for Blease Landscapes Limited from 19 February 2019 until March 2021. The tribunal found that he had previously resigned in October 2018 by text message, that he was re-employed in February 2019, and that from then until March 2021 the business was a small family-run operation with no HR department. It also found that he repeatedly asked for a written contract or statement of terms, but none was provided.

The tribunal accepted that there had been a series of disputes and incidents at work in 2019 and 2020, including the July 2019 garden incident, the 15 October 2019 traffic-light incident, and the 30 September 2020 strimmer incident, but no disciplinary proceedings were brought after those matters. On 4 March 2021 the claimant argued with AB about overtime, shouted at him, and walked away. The tribunal rejected Blease Landscapes' case that he had resigned that day. It found that he said words to the effect that he was not coming back in, but that this was said in the heat of the moment and was not a clear and unambiguous resignation.

The tribunal held that the claimant was dismissed when Blease Landscapes sent him a P45 on 10 March 2021 after receiving his grievance letter. It found that the principal reason for dismissal was conduct, not SOSR, and that the employer genuinely believed misconduct had occurred on reasonable grounds. However, the employer carried out no investigation, held no disciplinary hearing, and gave the claimant no opportunity to respond, so the dismissal was procedurally unfair and outside the band of reasonable responses. The tribunal also found contributory fault on the claimant's part and reduced compensation by 75%, applied a further 20% Polkey reduction, and then applied a 20% uplift for unreasonable failure to comply with the ACAS Code.

On the separate written statement issue, the tribunal found that the respondent was in breach of the duty to provide written particulars of employment. It said the statutory minimum increase was two weeks' pay and that, in the circumstances, four weeks' pay would be just and equitable, but the judgment did not state the monetary figure and directed that remedy would be dealt with at a later hearing.