Mr R Aford v Manchester Breakdown Services Limited — 2019

Mr Aford was employed by Manchester Breakdown Services Limited from 15 April 2010. The tribunal rejected the respondent's case that he resigned by conduct after the 8 January 2019 meeting. It found that the meeting, held while he was on authorised leave, dealt with changes to workshop operations and alternative duties, but did not communicate a dismissal. The texts and letters that followed added to confusion, but none of them amounted to a clear dismissal before 12 February 2019.

The tribunal held that the dismissal was communicated only by the respondent's letter of 12 February 2019, received on 14 February 2019, which referred to unauthorised absence and enclosed a P45. The principal reason was conduct, namely continued non-attendance. The dismissal was unfair because the respondent carried out no proper investigation, did not invite the claimant to a disciplinary meeting, did not follow the ACAS Code, and did not give any warning before dismissing. The tribunal also found the decision outside the range of reasonable responses.

On remedy principles, the tribunal reduced any award by 20% for Polkey because there was a realistic possibility that a fair process could still have led to dismissal, and by 25% for contributory fault because the claimant did fail to attend work from 14 January 2019 onwards. It rejected the respondent's redundancy and historic competing-business arguments as the reasons for dismissal.

The claimant's wrongful dismissal claim succeeded because he was dismissed without the eight weeks' notice to which the respondent accepted he was entitled. The claim under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 concerning written particulars failed because the tribunal found he had been issued with terms and conditions. The tribunal also found an unlawful deduction from wages only for one day's pay on 8 January 2019, while rejecting the claim that a week in hand had been deducted and rejecting further pay claims for the later period of absence. The holiday pay claim failed because the tribunal found the 2018/19 entitlement had been used and there was no basis for carry-over from earlier years. A remedy hearing was listed for 10 January 2020.