Case 2405814/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms A Wynne v Fundamental Coaching Limited (t/a FUNDA) — 2020
- Case reference
- 2405814/2020
- Decision date
- 22 December 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McDonald
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms A Wynne
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs A Wynne was employed by Fundamental Coaching Limited as an apprentice from 19 November 2018. The tribunal found that the contract and apprenticeship agreement were intended to support her towards a Level 3 Digital Marketing qualification with Burnley College, including off-the-job training and cooperation with the training provider. Although there was no express term in the employment contract cross-referring to the apprenticeship agreement, the tribunal held there was an implied term requiring the respondent to cooperate with the claimant and the college so that she could complete the qualification.
The tribunal preferred the claimant's evidence on the main disputed events. It found that at the meeting on 12 November 2019 Mr Fletcher encouraged her to give up the college course and work full time for the respondent, and that the respondent was frustrated by the time she spent at college. It did not find that the deletion of project work around 21 November 2019 was a deliberate act targeted at the claimant. It did find, however, that the disciplinary allegations issued on 23 January 2020 were largely unwarranted, that the respondent failed to provide the claimant with the supporting evidence before issuing a final written warning, and that the allegation of breach of confidentiality was not upheld on appeal.
The tribunal also found that the respondent terminated the Burnley College agreement without consulting the claimant. It held that this undermined a fundamental part of the apprenticeship arrangement and was a repudiatory breach of the implied cooperation term, or alternatively that the disciplinary process and termination of the college agreement together breached the implied term of mutual trust and confidence. The claimant resigned with immediate effect on 17 February 2020, there was no affirmation, and her claim succeeded. The respondent's counterclaim for notice pay failed because she was entitled to resign in response to the respondent's breach.
On remedy, the parties agreed the starting point was two months' notice pay and agreed the gross figure of £2,598.75, together with deductions of £133.98 for holiday overpayment, £50.83 for sums earned while employed by Burnley College, and £288.75 for an overpayment of one week. The tribunal recorded that the debate remained whether National Insurance should be deducted and what should be done about the overpayment deductions, and it directed the parties to write within 14 days to confirm whether the amount due had been agreed. No final award figure was recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal held that the claimant was entitled to resign in response to the respondent's repudiatory breach and treated the dismissal as being in breach of the contractual notice term. The judgment describes the claimant's complaint as wrongful dismissal and says it succeeds. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Respondent's counterclaim for damages based on the claimant allegedly resigning without giving two months' notice. The tribunal found the claimant was not in breach because she resigned in response to the respondent's repudiatory breach. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
18 references- Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp
- Ali v Petroleum Co of Trinidad and Tobago
- Devonald v Rosser and Sons
- Sagar v Ridehalgh and Son Ltd
- Mears v Safecar Security Ltd
- Shirlaw v Southern Foundries (officious bystander test)
- Malik v Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA
- Bradbury v BBC
- Buckland v Bournemouth University Higher Education Corporation
- Morrow v Safeway Stores
- Omilaju v Waltham Forest LBC (No. 2)
- Kaur v Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust
- Williams v Governing Body of Alderman Davies Church in Wales Primary School
- s.A1 Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009
- s.A5 Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009
- regulation 3 of the Apprenticeships (Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2017
- s.86 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Employment Tribunals (England and Wales) Extension of Jurisdiction Order 1994
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.