Mr Connor, Solicitor For the v Respondent — 2025

The claimant was employed as a Hire Desk Controller from 1 July 2020. His contract recorded salary of £30,000, later rising to £40,000, and his normal hours were Monday to Friday. The tribunal found that after discussions in 2023 he agreed with Mr Duxbury, the respondent's Operations Director and statutory director, that he would work four days per week from 1 October 2023 but keep the same pay. Mr Duxbury told him by text to take Monday off and said he would get it sorted, and the tribunal found the claimant was entitled to rely on that agreement, which bound the company.

The respondent later said no variation had been agreed and issued a warning on 6 February 2024 stating that unauthorised absence could lead to deductions and dismissal. The claimant raised an appeal and grievance on 13 February 2024, but the tribunal found the respondent did not hold a grievance meeting without unreasonable delay. A meeting arranged for 13 March 2024 was not, on the evidence, a grievance meeting. The respondent then deducted pay on 28 February 2024 and again in March 2024; the tribunal found the claimant had not affirmed the contract by continuing to work, because he had already challenged the position and resigned shortly after the second deduction.

Around 28 March 2024 the claimant received the response to a DSAR, which included emails between Mr Richards and Mr Duxbury in which Mr Richards said the claimant had to go. The tribunal found that this damaged trust and confidence and, together with the failure to pay the claimant in full, amounted to fundamental breaches of contract. It held that the claimant resigned on 3 April 2024 in response to those breaches and was therefore constructively dismissed, so the unfair dismissal complaint succeeded. The tribunal rejected the respondent's late argument that the dismissal would have been fair for some other substantial reason, found no basis for a Polkey reduction, and said there was no blameworthy conduct by the claimant.

The breach of contract claim for notice pay and the unlawful deduction from wages claim also succeeded. The tribunal found the respondent had unreasonably failed to comply with the ACAS Code on disciplinary and grievance procedures and said it was just and equitable to increase any compensatory award by 15%. The extracted reasons do not state a final monetary award.