Case 2500895/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L Conway v Equans Fabricom UK Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2500895/2022
- Decision date
- 20 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Loy REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Teesside
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr L Conway
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal rejected the claimant's case that he had a bespoke oral agreement with the former Managing Director, Mr Welford, entitling him to Offshore Allowance when he was not working offshore. It preferred the contemporaneous notes of the meetings on 3 February 2022 and 17 February 2022, and found that the claimant and Mr McCabe knew Mr McCabe had no authority to make such an arrangement. It also found the claimant's account of 14-hour flat days, weather-day overtime and related allowance claims to be inconsistent with the contemporaneous records and with his own evidence that he rarely went offshore.
On the claimant's Offshore Allowance claim, the tribunal held that no Offshore Allowance was contractually due for the 2021 campaign and that the £9,513.15 deducted from the claimant's final salary on 25 March 2022 was an authorised deduction under clauses 14 and 15 of the contract. It held in the alternative that the deduction was an excepted deduction under s.14 ERA 1996 because it was repayment of an overpayment. The tribunal also found that the respondent had included £1,603.86 for accrued unused holiday pay in its final calculation, so no separate holiday pay balance remained unpaid, and that the claimant had worked and been paid for his four weeks' notice.
The constructive unfair dismissal claim failed because the tribunal found the respondent had reasonable and proper cause to investigate the 2021 campaign pay and hours, to ask for explanations, and to require changes for the 2022 campaign. It held that the 11 February 2022 mandate, and the subsequent 17 February 2022 concession that travel could take place in working time, did not amount to a repudiatory breach of contract, and that the claimant did not resign in response to any breach by the respondent. The tribunal therefore found that the claimant was not dismissed and that his employment ended by voluntary resignation on 21 February 2022. It also upheld the respondent's counterclaim for the remaining £10,056.85 of overpaid Offshore Allowance.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | Claimant alleged constructive unfair dismissal contrary to ss.94 and 98 ERA 1996. The tribunal found the respondent had reasonable and proper cause to raise concerns about the 2021 campaign payments and working patterns, found no repudiatory breach, and held that the claimant voluntarily resigned on 21 February 2022. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claimant's claim for unpaid Offshore Allowance was pleaded as breach of contract and/or unlawful deduction from wages. The tribunal rejected the alleged oral agreement with Mr Welford, found no entitlement to Offshore Allowance for the 2021 campaign, and held the £9,513.15 deduction from final pay was authorised by clauses 14 and 15 of the contract and alternatively fell within s.14 ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had included £1,603.86 for unused accrued holiday pay in the final calculation and that no separate holiday pay balance remained due. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Respondent's counterclaim for repayment of the balance of overpaid Offshore Allowance succeeded. The tribunal found the claimant had been overpaid £19,570 in Offshore Allowance, that £9,513.15 had been recovered from final wages, and that the remaining £10,056.85 was recoverable from the claimant. | Upheld | — | £10,057 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £10,057
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
8 references- s.13 ERA 1996
- s.14 ERA 1996
- s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996
- Malik v Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA
- Tullett Prebon plc v BGC Brokers LLP
- Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp
- Bournemouth University Higher Education Corporation v Buckland
- Kaur v Leeds Teaching Hospitals
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.