Mr S Brady, Counsel For the v Respondent — 2018

The claimant had worked for the respondent since October 2004 at the Corby depot and, on the tribunal’s findings, had no prior performance complaints or disciplinary record. The dispute arose after the respondent brought in a new warehouse supervisor, Mr Van Haren, and the tribunal accepted that tensions developed in the warehouse and with some customers and deliveries.

The central issue was what happened at the meeting on 12 February 2018 with the Managing Director, Mr Scholten. The tribunal found that Mr Scholten told the claimant words to the effect that this was not going to be a good conversation, that the respondent no longer wanted him to work for it, and that a settlement agreement was being put to him. The claimant was told to take legal advice, had ten days to sign, could keep the car and credit card in the meantime, and was told to leave and not return. The tribunal concluded that those facts showed the claimant had been dismissed that day.

The tribunal also relied on the claimant’s letter of 19 February 2018, which referred to his dismissal on 12 February, and on the absence of any prompt denial from the respondent that he had been dismissed. It noted that the respondent later convened poor performance and disciplinary meetings, but found no supporting customer complaints were produced and concluded that the later capability process was a cover for the earlier dismissal.

Applying section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the tribunal held that the dismissal was procedurally and substantively unfair. It also set out the law on constructive dismissal under section 95(1)(c), but its conclusion was that there had been an actual dismissal on 12 February 2018 rather than a resignation by the claimant.