Mr D Skelhorn v Mr G Whittaker — 2021

The sole claim was unfair dismissal. The tribunal framed the issue as whether the claimant had been dismissed or had resigned, and if dismissed whether the dismissal was unfair. It heard evidence from both parties and relied heavily on contemporaneous texts, the claimant’s own admissions, and the sequence of events at Tuffnells Haydock on 22 April 2021.

The tribunal found that the claimant became angry about the number of deliveries, complained to Mr Openshaw, and then walked off site without waiting to see whether the load would be reduced. It rejected the claimant’s account that he left because of back pain, noting that none of the contemporaneous texts mentioned back problems and that the later letter sent from Daniel Skelhorn’s account appeared contrived and was given little weight.

The tribunal accepted Mr Whittaker’s evidence that the claimant telephoned him twice and, in substance, said he had had enough of the job, had gone home, had no intention of going back, and later said, “that’s me done.” Applying section 95 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and the authorities cited on unambiguous resignation or dismissal words, including Southern v Franks Charlesly and Co and Graham Group plc v Garratt, the tribunal held that these words were unambiguous or, if ambiguous, would objectively be understood as a resignation.

Because Tuffnells had barred the claimant from site due to his own actions and the respondent had no other work for him, the tribunal held that this did not amount to dismissal by the respondent. The complaint of unfair dismissal was therefore dismissed and no monetary award was made.