Case 3305331/2023 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Mr Knight, Chief Operating Officer — 2024
- Case reference
- 3305331/2023
- Decision date
- 6 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Manley Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant started as a Sales Engineer in October 2020. The dispute concerned commission under a series of sales compensation plans dated 23 June 2021, 2 July 2022 and 28 October 2022. The tribunal recorded that the plans stated the respondent reserved the right to change or amend any part of the sales agreement at its sole discretion. It also recorded that the claimant’s case was that the quarter 1 base commission rate of 1.03% was a mathematical error and that 1.44% should have applied.
On the breach of contract issue, the tribunal found the contractual wording was clear enough to permit amendment by the respondent and that the claimant had not shown a clear contractual right to commission calculated in the way he argued. It held that, even if commission formed part of the contract, the claimant had not shown that the 1.03% figure was wrongly calculated, and it accepted that the figure was written in the compensation plans. The tribunal therefore found no breach of contract and no further sums due in relation to commission.
On constructive unfair dismissal, the tribunal applied section 95(1)(c) Employment Rights Act 1996 and considered whether there had been a fundamental breach of contract, including a breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence. It found the 2 November 2022 meeting had become heated but was not bullying, and that Mr Knight and Mr Phillips were trying to resolve the issues. It also found the grievance process was followed, the complaint was investigated, and recommendations were made to the compensation plans. On that basis, the tribunal held the respondent had not acted in a way showing it no longer intended to be bound by the contract.
The tribunal accepted that the claimant was unhappy and that this contributed to his decision to leave, but it found he had not shown that he resigned in response to a fundamental breach by the employer. The constructive unfair dismissal claim therefore failed, as did the breach of contract claim. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The tribunal treated the claim as constructive unfair dismissal under s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996 and found no fundamental breach of contract, no breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence, and no dismissal by employer conduct. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found no breach of contract in the commission arrangements and held that no further sums were due. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.95(1)(c) Employment Rights Act 1996
- implied term of mutual trust and confidence
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.