Mr S Rowland v KMA Motors Limited — 2020

Mr S Rowland worked for KMA Motors Limited from 31 May 2016 as a mechanic and there was no written contract. The tribunal found that the respondent's intention to deduct £160.86 for lost Mazda parts, reflected in a payslip seen by the claimant on 20 June 2019, was a repudiatory breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. When the claimant raised the deduction on 21 June 2019 and said he could not take it any more and that the respondent should look for someone else, those words were not treated as an unambiguous resignation.

The tribunal rejected most of the other alleged breaches relied on for constructive dismissal. It found there was no agreed pay rise, no proved intolerable work environment, and no sufficient evidence of inappropriate language in front of customers. It found the change from weekly to monthly pay in April 2019 was a breach of contract and trust and confidence, but also found the claimant affirmed that breach by continuing to work under the new arrangement. The grievance handling was not treated as a breach of the ACAS Code because the respondent invited a meeting, offered accompaniment, and dealt with the grievance within days.

The tribunal held that the respondent's letter and oral statement on 8 July 2019, purporting to accept a resignation that had not been given, was itself a repudiatory breach. The claimant resigned in writing on 9 July 2019 in response to the deductions, his own plan to leave and the mistaken acceptance of a non-existent resignation. The constructive unfair dismissal claim therefore succeeded, but the judgment left compensation for a remedy hearing and invited submissions on how long the claimant would have remained in employment if he had not been constructively dismissed.

The claimant's unlawful deduction from wages claim was withdrawn after the respondent admitted the deductions of £41.33 and £160.86 were unauthorised and repaid them. The separate claim for failure to provide written particulars succeeded, with the tribunal saying a section 38 Employment Act 2002 award of two weeks' pay would be just and equitable, although no exact sum was set out. The breach of contract claim for notice pay also succeeded, the holiday pay claim failed for lack of proof, and the respondent's counterclaim failed because the tribunal was not satisfied that the alleged mistakes amounted to a contractual breach.