Miss E L Jackson v FBJ Construction Limited — 2019

Miss E L Jackson, who was employed by FBJ Construction Limited from 2013, was suspended in July 2019 after concerns about a company vehicle, alleged drink driving, and whether her partner had driven company vehicles without permission. The tribunal found that Mr Jackson had previously told her that Mr Walsh was not to drive the respondent’s vehicles, that the respondent investigated the allegations, and that Ms Fay was appointed through Gorvins to conduct the disciplinary process.

The claimant was invited to a disciplinary meeting on 4 September 2019, asked for a postponement, and the hearing was rearranged to 16 September 2019. At the disciplinary meeting, the claimant said her position had become untenable and raised concerns about the process, including the absence of an investigatory meeting and the ability to question witnesses. Ms Fay later spoke to Mr Williams and Mr Jackson before issuing an outcome letter on 7 October 2019. The tribunal found that Ms Fay, not Mr Jackson, made the dismissal decision.

The dismissal was held to be for some other substantial reason, namely an irretrievable breakdown in the working relationship between the claimant and Mr Jackson. The tribunal found there was evidence of breakdown from the claimant’s own written statement, her comments at the disciplinary meeting, and Mr Jackson’s evidence to Ms Fay. It also found there was no realistic alternative role within the small business and that dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses. The tribunal rejected the claimant’s argument that the breakdown had been caused by an unfair disciplinary process, finding that the suspension, the absence of a separate investigatory meeting, the lack of cross-examination, and Ms Fay’s role did not make the overall process unfair.

On the contract and wages claims, the tribunal found that the claimant’s contract of employment provided for a basic salary of £18,000 per year and did not give her a contractual right to a company car. It accepted that the higher monthly amounts she received were discretionary top-up payments from Mr Jackson, more consistent with sibling assistance than contractual remuneration, and that some other payments were consultancy payments from Lucas Asset Management. For that reason, the claims for unpaid full pay during suspension, unpaid notice pay at the higher figure, and unlawful deductions from wages failed. The tribunal also found that the contract contained a payment-in-lieu-of-notice clause, so paying her in lieu of notice was not a breach of contract.

The tribunal did find that the respondent had failed to give the claimant a written statement of terms and conditions required by s.1 ERA 1996. However, it held that no compensation could be awarded under s.38 Employment Act 2002 because none of the claimant’s other claims succeeded. The result was that all substantive financial claims failed and no award was made.