Mr Stephen Taylor v TRGB Ltd — 2026

The tribunal dismissed Stephen Taylor’s constructive unfair dismissal claim against TRGB Ltd because he resigned and was not constructively dismissed. His holiday pay and related unauthorised deductions complaints succeeded. Taylor worked as a classic car fitter from May 2021 until 15 January 2024. He left the workshop on 21 June 2023 and subsequently remained on sickness absence with depression and anxiety. The tribunal found that frustration with a task for which parts were missing triggered his departure from the workshop; it rejected his later assertion that he left because he feared workshop manager Stephen Brocklebank.

The tribunal found that concerns about parts, work allocation and workshop practices had been addressed as far as possible. Taylor had not shown that he faced excessive workloads, unreasonable deadlines or bullying and harassment. The tribunal accepted that Brocklebank may have shouted during the incident on 21 June and made a separate remark about working with Taylor, but found that these matters did not amount to bullying, harassment or a repudiatory breach in their context.

The tribunal rejected allegations that Gary Bates visited Taylor’s home, arranged visits by others or disclosed his health information. An employee’s hand delivery of a letter was a reasonable means of getting correspondence to him and did not establish a breach of trust and confidence. Recruitment of another fitter was not shown to have been intended to replace Taylor, whose role remained open. Comments about the stress caused by the situation, an apparent overseas dialling tone and Taylor’s potential mental health problems did not establish a repudiatory breach when read in context. Statutory sick pay had been paid, and the correspondence about eligibility and unauthorised absence did not amount to threats to withhold pay or dismiss him.

Bates repeatedly sought discussions, but Taylor did not speak to or meet him during more than six months of sickness absence. The tribunal accepted that Bates had concerns about who was drafting correspondence and whether third parties were authorised. Requiring a signed authority or personal collection before supplying further copies of employment documents was justified in those circumstances. Blocking Taylor’s access to Bates’s mobile number after late-night contact did not prevent other communication. The tribunal found that Taylor’s lack of engagement prevented the respondent from discussing his written concerns directly with him.

Taylor said that he resigned because he did not want to attend the proposed meeting about his sickness absence. Applying the contractual test and the principles on cumulative breaches and a last straw, the tribunal found that inviting him to such a meeting was appropriate. None of the matters relied on, individually or together, amounted to a repudiatory breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. The holiday pay dispute arose after his resignation and could not have caused it. As there was no constructive dismissal, the tribunal did not need to decide whether there was a potentially fair reason for dismissal.