Mr M Jones v Cygnet Learning Disability Limited — 2024

The Claimant worked for the Respondent as Head Chef / Manager at Colchester from 6 September 2010 until his resignation on 2 July 2021. His contract stated that pay rates were reviewed annually, but his salary remained at £25,500 until April 2021, when he was told he would receive a 6% increase to £27,060. The tribunal accepted that he had raised the lack of pay reviews over a number of years, including informally before his grievance and then in the grievance itself, and it found that the grievance process upheld the absence of pay reviews while rejecting the age discrimination complaint.

On the Covid-related issues, the tribunal found that the Claimant repeatedly asked for the Respondent’s site risk assessment after his return to work in October 2020 and again after 29 April 2021. It held that the Respondent did not provide the updated site risk assessment he was asking for, and that the long-standing failure to review pay together with that failure to provide the requested risk assessment amounted to breaches of the implied term of trust and confidence and the contractual term requiring annual pay reviews. The Claimant resigned on 2 July 2021 in response to those breaches, so ordinary constructive unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal by way of notice pay succeeded.

The automatic unfair dismissal claim under s100(1)(d) ERA 1996 failed because the tribunal was not satisfied there were circumstances of serious and imminent danger, or that the Claimant’s belief in such danger was reasonable. The age discrimination claim failed because the tribunal found the reason for the pay-review omission and the furlough and absence communications was not age, and that comparators of different ages were treated similarly. The harassment claim failed for the same reason, except that the over-70 furlough communication could be age-related but did not have the purpose or effect required by s26 EqA. The victimisation claim failed because, although protected acts were accepted, the tribunal found no relevant decision-maker acted because of them; it also held that some discrimination complaints about Ms Albano were out of time and refused to extend time.