Case 3200347/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr W. Williams v South East London & Kent Bus Company Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 3200347/2019
- Decision date
- 19 May 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Massarella Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr W. Williams
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Williams worked as a bus driver at the respondent's Plumstead garage from 28 November 2016 to 14 December 2018. His race discrimination, sex discrimination and wrongful dismissal claims had been withdrawn at the preliminary hearing on 11 April 2019, and the reserved judgment records them as dismissed having been withdrawn. The hearing on the remaining claims took place on 7-9 January 2020 before Employment Judge Massarella.
The tribunal dismissed the constructive dismissal claim. It found that Mr Barton lawfully reviewed a large number of informal shift arrangements, refused the June 2017 flexible working request on the permissible ground of inability to reorganise existing work among existing staff, and was entitled to refuse the September 2017 form as a fresh request made within 12 months of the first. The alleged May 2018 promise to put an agreement in place was not made, and the November and December 2018 complaints about Ms Wagstaff either did not occur as alleged or were supported by reasonable and proper cause, including her direction to use the mutual exchanges board and the need to investigate the circumstances of the claimant's absence.
The tribunal held that there was no repudiatory or anticipatory breach about sick pay. Ms Wagstaff told the claimant that the position on sick pay would be determined after an investigation, not that SSP or contractual sick pay would be refused outright, and the claimant resigned on 14 December 2018 after deciding to do so on 12 December 2018. The SSP claim succeeded because the respondent accepted SSP was due and had not paid it when proceedings were issued, but the contractual sick pay claim failed because the respondent had not exercised its discretion in the claimant's favour before resignation and was entitled to await the outcome of the investigation. In the remedy section the tribunal noted that the respondent had paid 103.27 in respect of SSP on 18 April 2019 and asked the parties to confirm whether that was the correct amount before any further short judgment, so no final award is stated here.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim succeeded in respect of statutory sick pay because SSP had not been paid when proceedings were issued; remedy was left open because the respondent had already paid 103.27 on 18 April 2019 and the judge asked the parties to confirm whether that was the correct amount. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim in respect of contractual sick pay failed. The tribunal found no contractual sick pay was due on termination and that the respondent was entitled to await the outcome of the investigation into the claimant's absence before deciding whether to exercise its discretion. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The claimant resigned without notice on 14 December 2018, but the tribunal found no repudiatory or anticipatory breach by the respondent and no constructive dismissal. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Withdrawn at the preliminary hearing on 11 April 2019; the reserved judgment records it as dismissed having been withdrawn. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Withdrawn at the preliminary hearing on 11 April 2019; the reserved judgment records it as dismissed having been withdrawn. |
Legal tests applied
14 references- s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- implied term of trust and confidence
- last straw principle
- London Borough of Waltham Forest v Omilaju
- Kaur v Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust
- Nottinghamshire County Council v Meikle
- Hilton v Shiner Ltd Builders Merchants
- Harrison v Norwest Holst Group Administration Ltd
- Financial Techniques (Planning Services) Ltd v Hughes
- W.E. Cox Toner (International) Ltd v Crook
- s.13 ERA 1996
- s.80F ERA 1996
- s.80G ERA 1996
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.