Case 2604511/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr O Price v Telecom Service Centres Ltd t/a Webhelp UK — 2021
- Case reference
- 2604511/2020
- Decision date
- 29 July 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Broughton
- Venue
- Nottingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr O Price
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant resigned after the Respondent closed the Derby site during the Covid-19 pandemic and asked employees to work from home. The Tribunal found that the Respondent had no express or implied contractual right to require the Claimant to work from home, and that, while the Claimant was willing to work at the Derby site or another office within reasonable travelling distance, the Respondent was contractually obliged to pay his salary unless the contract was varied or terminated.
The redundancy payment claim under the lay-off provisions failed because the Claimant was a salaried employee whose remuneration did not depend on being provided with work, so he did not meet section 147 ERA 1996. The Tribunal also found that, although his 21 September emails would have been adequate notice of intention to claim and the Respondent had served a valid counter-notice, he did not resign on the contractual three weeks' notice required by section 150.
The redundancy payment claim based on alleged constructive dismissal also failed. The Tribunal found that the Claimant was not singled out because of socialist views or his approach to Eurostar refunds, was not entitled to be treated as laid off under the statutory scheme, and had no reasonable basis to believe he would be required to work for Eurostar in Kent or dismissed if he refused. Although the Derby site closure amounted to a temporary cessation of the requirement for employees to work at that place, the alleged breaches of trust and confidence were not established.
The unlawful deduction from wages claim failed despite the Tribunal's finding that the homeworking requirement was not contractually permitted. The Claimant did not protest about non-payment or make clear that he was remaining employed under protest for about five months, and the Tribunal concluded that by his conduct he had impliedly agreed to remain at home on unpaid leave until the Derby site reopened. The wages claimed were therefore not properly payable under section 13 ERA 1996.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The claim of unfair (constructive) dismissal was dismissed on withdrawal by the Claimant at the outset of the hearing. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Redundancy | The claim to a redundancy payment under section 135(1)(a) ERA 1996, based on alleged dismissal by reason of redundancy, was not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | The claim to a redundancy payment under section 135(1)(b) ERA 1996, based on alleged lay-off, was not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim for unpaid wages from 10 April 2020 to 7 October 2020 under section 13 ERA 1996 was not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
20 references- section 135(1)(a) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 135(1)(b) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 136(1)(c) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 139 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 147 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 148 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 149 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 150 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp
- Arnold v Britton
- contra proferentem rule
- business efficacy
- Jones v Associated Tunnelling Co Ltd
- Courtaulds Northern Spinning Ltd v Sibson
- Luke v Stoke-on-Trent City Council
- Millbrook Furnishing Industries Ltd v McIntosh
- Gemmell v Darngavil Brickworks Ltd
- Whitbread plc t/a Whitbread Inns v Flattery
- Rigby v Ferodo Ltd
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.