Mr G Napper v Pentaco Construction Limited — 2025

The claimant, Mr G Napper, was employed as managing director of Pentaco Construction Limited from 26 May 2017 until he resigned on 7 December 2023. He brought claims for constructive unfair dismissal and failure to pay accrued but untaken holiday pay. The tribunal held that he was told on 25 October 2023 to go home for two weeks, was then excluded from company information and IT access, and that his grievance and related correspondence sent through solicitors on 15 November 2023 were in the main ignored. It also found that the disciplinary process was to be chaired by Mr Hubbard, against whom the claimant had raised grievances, which was a poor and unreasonable choice, although the tribunal did not find that this alone was a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence.

The tribunal accepted that several of the respondent's acts breached the implied term of mutual trust and confidence. It found that instructing the claimant to go home without further information, excluding him from company information and operations, and in the main ignoring his grievance, protected disclosures and information request were acts likely to destroy or seriously damage trust and confidence and were without reasonable and proper cause. On the tribunal's findings, the claimant was also excluded from the respondent's business, including IT systems and company information, for just over three weeks. The tribunal further held that Mr Hubbard's refusal on 7 December 2023 to step down from the disciplinary process was the last in a series of acts or incidents that cumulatively amounted to a repudiation of contract.

The claim nevertheless failed because the tribunal found the resignation was not in response to those breaches. It accepted that the claimant's resignation email referred to being sent home, being cut out of the business, and having grievances ignored, but concluded that the real reason for resignation was that he wanted to avoid attending the disciplinary hearing on 8 December 2023 at all costs. The tribunal also rejected the claimant's case that the disciplinary allegations had been concocted to end his employment, finding the allegations from P-D were serious and warranted investigation, even though it was unreasonable for Mr Hubbard to remain involved in the hearing. The constructive unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed.

On holiday pay, the parties agreed that 10 days of annual leave were in contention and that the respondent had already paid three days carried over from previous leave years. The claimant relied on a case that the service agreement had been varied, or alternatively that there was a custom and practice allowing carry-over of more than three days. The tribunal found clause 9.2 of the service agreement prohibited carry-over, there was no evidence of any mutual variation agreed by the board, and the evidence about other employees carrying over extra days was insufficient to establish a term that was reasonable, notorious and certain. It therefore dismissed the holiday pay claim as well.