Mr A Howd v Mr A Bowlt trading as Bowlt Homes — 2020

The tribunal considered whether Mr A Howd had been dismissed, had resigned, or had resigned in response to a fundamental breach of contract. The claimant relied on events in late September 2019, including a dispute about lifts to work, proposed hours, lunch breaks, and alleged words said by the respondent. The respondent’s case was that the claimant had resigned when he came to the site on 4 October 2019 to collect his tools.

Applying the burden of proof to the claimant, the tribunal found that the respondent did not dismiss him on 27 or 30 September 2019. It accepted that the respondent usually gave the claimant lifts, but found that the respondent had told him in advance that he had a Monday morning client meeting, so the failure to pick him up on 30 September did not amount to a dismissal. The tribunal also held that even if the words alleged by the claimant had been used, they would not have been enough in the circumstances to amount to dismissal.

The tribunal found that the claimant resigned from his employment on 4 October 2019 when he went to the site to collect his tools. That finding was supported by the respondent’s evidence and by two independent witnesses, Mr Alan Boag and Mr Alan Lennard. The tribunal also relied on the claimant’s failure to respond promptly to the respondent’s letter of 7 October 2019 asking whether he had resigned, and noted that he had not clarified the position until later, after starting proceedings.

The tribunal further found that the claimant had not proved that any resignation was caused by a fundamental breach of contract by the respondent. It therefore rejected the constructive dismissal basis advanced in the issues. The result was that the complaint of unfair dismissal was not well founded and was dismissed in full.