Mr C McCooey v Elopak UK Limited — 2023

The claimant, a field services engineer, complained that after the respondent changed its expense arrangements he was not fully reimbursed for fuel used on business travel. The tribunal found that from early 2019 the respondent did not have arrangements that adequately compensated him, that he repeatedly raised the shortfall, and that the respondent later accepted there was a shortfall. On the claimant's own spreadsheet, the tribunal recorded an overall shortfall of £867.58 across 49,550 business miles, and found that a 3p gross uplift per mile would broadly have met that loss, although not on the tax-free basis the claimant wanted.

The tribunal found that the respondent did not reasonably and promptly address the grievance. It accepted that the grievance and appeal were delayed in part by the pandemic, but also found an undercurrent of blaming the claimant for his vehicle choice and driving style, which influenced both the delay and the outcome. It held that the grievance outcome and appeal outcome did not fully address the shortfall, and that the claimant's alternative proposed issues about a reduced overnight allowance and Covid precautions did not contribute to his resignation.

Applying the constructive dismissal principles under s.95(1)(c) and s.98 ERA 1996, and the implied term of trust and confidence, the tribunal held that the failure to fully reimburse expenses, the delay in handling the grievance, and the 11 March 2021 email exchange cumulatively amounted to a fundamental breach. It found that breach was the principal reason for the claimant's resignation on 14 May 2021, that he had not affirmed the contract, and that the dismissal was unfair. It also found a separate breach of contract for the unreimbursed expenses. Remedy was left to a later hearing, so no final award was made in this judgment.