Mr Andrew Bevins v Eriks Industrial Services Limited — 2019

Mr Bevins had been employed since 7 February 2005 and the dispute centred on bonus arrangements. The tribunal found the written bonus terms gave him eligibility to participate in schemes that were reviewed and set by the respondent, and it accepted that the Branch Bonus Scheme was discretionary. It found he was not contractually entitled to bonus payments for financial year 2014 or 2017 beyond what the respondent had already paid under the applicable scheme.

The tribunal allowed the claimant to rely on an inadvertently disclosed draft 16 May 2018 grievance outcome letter, but held that no adverse inference arose from the respondent's handling of it. It found the 20 March 2018 email complaining about bonus and contractual changes was a personal employment grievance, not a protected disclosure made in the public interest, and that the claimant had no proper basis for saying other employees were affected in the way he alleged. On that basis the detriment claim under section 47B ERA 1996 and the automatic unfair dismissal claim under section 103A ERA 1996 failed.

The tribunal also rejected the alleged detriments said to arise from the response to the grievance, the non-payment of £165, and exclusion from the Dusseldorf client visit. It found the grievance was investigated and appealed, that the £165 issue turned on the claimant's grade and scheme eligibility, and that the trip decision flowed from the claimant's stated intention to resign if the grievance failed rather than from any protected disclosure.

The constructive unfair dismissal claim failed because the respondent's conduct was not found to be a repudiatory breach or a cumulative breach of trust and confidence. The tribunal held the grievance outcome was lawful, the claimant had affirmed the position by continuing in employment, and his resignation was driven by his threat to resign and his decision to set up a competing business. All claims were dismissed and no monetary award was made.