Case 3306288/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Steven Dalton v City Circle UK Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 3306288/2021
- Decision date
- 1 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hutchings
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Steven Dalton
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Steven Dalton worked for City Circle UK Limited as a coach driver from 24 February 2020 under a written contract providing 264 guaranteed days annually, 9 hours per day at £11.50 per hour, 28 days' paid holiday, a leave year of 1 April to 31 March, and one month's notice. During the Covid-19 period the respondent first told him he was not eligible for furlough, later told him he was eligible when the government criteria changed, and in October 2020 offered redundancy-avoidance options including a 50% work/50% pay arrangement at the London depot.
The tribunal rejected the claims for unpaid notice pay and unpaid holiday pay. It found that Mr Dalton gave notice on 30 October 2020, did not withdraw it with the respondent's agreement, and that the withdrawal was not made in the heat of the moment. His employment therefore ended on 30 November 2020, and the tribunal found the respondent paid his notice entitlement in full in the final payment on 10 December 2020.
On holiday pay, the tribunal found the leave year ran from 1 April to 31 March and that Mr Dalton's pro rata entitlement for 1 April 2020 to 30 November 2020 was 19 days. It found that 5 days were taken in August and 5 days in September, that those days were validly paid, and that the remaining 9 days were paid on termination. The tribunal therefore found no outstanding holiday pay due.
On furlough, the tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to determine a complaint that the respondent did not put Mr Dalton on furlough, because furlough was a government scheme and not an implied term of the contract. On the separate complaint about an unreasonable change to terms, the tribunal found the respondent did not amend the contract: the 50% work/50% pay option was a reasonable offer in the circumstances, the work remained at the claimant's London depot, and no contractual change was imposed. The claim was therefore not upheld.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Claim for non-payment of notice pay. The tribunal found the claimant's notice given on 30 October 2020 was not withdrawn, employment ended on 30 November 2020, and the respondent paid the notice pay in full in the final payment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Claim for non-payment of holiday pay. The tribunal found the claimant's holiday entitlement for 1 April 2020 to 30 November 2020 was paid in full, including the remaining 9 days paid on termination. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Complaint that the respondent did not put the claimant on furlough. The tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to determine this as a contractual claim because furlough was a government scheme and not an implied contractual term. | Other | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Complaint that the respondent made an unreasonable change to the claimant's terms. The tribunal found no contractual amendment was imposed; the 50% work/50% pay option was a reasonable offer in the Covid-19 context and was rejected by the claimant. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- heat of the moment exception
- Working Time Regulations 1998 regulation 15(5)
- Industrial & Commercial Maintenance Ltd v Briffa EAT/0215/08 & EAT/0216/08
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.