Mr B Walker v Compressed Air Management 2008 Ltd — 2020

The claimant was employed as an apprentice engineer. The tribunal found that his written contract and Schedule 1 required him to maintain a valid UK driving licence once passed, and that he had received the contract and attachment. It accepted the respondent's evidence that his duties depended on driving to client sites and that there was no suitable alternative work available once his licence was revoked on 8 September 2019.

The tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed on 9 September 2019, when he was no longer paid, was not offered work and the respondent had no work for him to do. It held that the reason for dismissal was the revocation of the claimant's driving licence and his inability to perform his contractual duties. Applying section 98(2)(a) and section 98(4) ERA 1996, the tribunal concluded that a driving licence was a qualification for the role, that it was an essential and continuing condition of employment, and that the dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses given the absence of alternative work and the respondent's small size and limited resources.

The tribunal also rejected the argument that the claimant had resigned between 12 November 2019, when his licence was reinstated, and 3 January 2020. It found the claimant had not contacted the respondent to say he was ready to return, had worked elsewhere in the intervening period, and his later text asking whether he should come in for a chat did not show continuing employment. The tribunal said the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures was not applicable because this was not a misconduct dismissal and no disciplinary action was taken.

The unlawful deduction claim failed because the tribunal found no wages were properly payable for the period 8 September 2019 to 12 November 2019. It applied the ordinary contractual approach to what was properly payable, referring to Greg May (Carpet Fitters and Contractors) Ltd v Dring and Camden Primary Care Trust v Atchoe. It noted that the claimant would likely have succeeded on notice pay if he had brought a wrongful dismissal or breach of contract claim, but no such claim was before the tribunal.