Mr A Bowskill v Select Support Partnerships Limited — 2019

The claimant was the respondent's Managing Director from 4 November 2013. The tribunal accepted that Mr Dalal was the controlling mind of the business and found that, on 13 September 2017 and again on 25 September 2017, he told the claimant that he would cease to be Managing Director and that Mr Dalal would take over that role, with an alternative role for the claimant still to be decided. The tribunal also found that on 13 September 2017 Mr Dalal said the claimant was too old to take stress and be driving around the country, and that this was later referred to in the parties' emails. The direct age discrimination complaint in relation to dismissal was withdrawn at the hearing.

On unfair dismissal, the tribunal rejected the contention that the claimant had been actually dismissed on either 13 or 25 September 2017 because no date was given for the end of his role and nothing else made a termination date ascertainable. It found instead that the claimant resigned in response to a fundamental breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence, namely the decision to remove him from the Managing Director role and demote him to an alternative lower-status role. The judgment notes that 25 September 2017 had been recorded on the claim and response forms as the effective date of termination, but in its reasoning the tribunal treated the claimant's 28 September 2017 letter as the resignation that ended the employment. The claimant acted promptly and did not affirm the contract. The tribunal therefore held that he was constructively dismissed and that the unfair dismissal complaint was well founded.

For remedy, the tribunal awarded a basic award of £2,200.50 and a compensatory award of £23,564.86 for the period 29 September 2017 to 31 March 2018, together with £500 for loss of statutory rights. It refused an ACAS uplift, holding that the ACAS Code of Practice on Discipline and Grievance did not apply, and found that the Recoupment Regulations did not apply. On the age harassment claim, the tribunal found unwanted conduct, no proven purpose to violate dignity, but an effect of violating dignity or creating an offensive environment. The parties had agreed the harassment complaint was out of time, but the tribunal went on to decide it on the merits. It awarded £800 for injury to feelings, said to be at the lower end of the lowest Vento band, plus £131 interest.