Mr Darren Layton v City Plumbing Supplies Holdings Limited — 2021

Mr Darren Layton had worked for City Plumbing Supplies Holdings Limited since 2011 and was branch manager at Malvern. The dispute concerned the way charity donations and courier transactions were posted against dormant customer accounts, the later disciplinary process, and whether Mr Layton resigned in response to breaches of contract. The tribunal heard evidence from Mr Layton, Chris Williams (CW), Christina Dell (CD), and considered unsigned statements from Philip Dock and Phillip Cham, which it discounted because they did not attend for cross-examination and were not signed.

The tribunal accepted Mr Layton's account that CW had instructed him to account for charity donations in the way he did. It relied on the 14 November 2019 HSPR meeting, the 28 November 2019 calls, the 3 December 2019 investigation meeting, HR records, and Rob Horrell's evidence. It found CW's evidence lacked credibility, and it concluded that the respondent's own approach to charity money was opaque and that the treatment CW described was itself difficult to distinguish from what he criticised Mr Layton for doing.

On that basis, the tribunal held that issuing the final written warning after the appeal was a breach of trust and confidence, and that the respondent also failed adequately to investigate Mr Layton's complaint that CW had given the instruction. It rejected the respondent's case that Mr Layton had committed gross misconduct or gained financially from the disputed transactions, noting that the disputed trading account figures did not change his maximum bonus position and that no evidence was given by the actual decision-maker on the bonus withholding. Applying the bonus plan's manipulation rule together with Braganza and Hills, it found the decision to withhold bonus was not justified.

The tribunal found that Mr Layton resigned because of the final written warning, the withholding of bonus, and the inadequate investigation, and it treated KW's 12 March 2020 response as a final straw in the constructive dismissal analysis. It therefore upheld constructive unfair dismissal and breach of contract, and held that notice pay and bonus were due. The judgment did not quantify the monetary sums in the liability decision.