Mr J Stone v 4th Dimension Innovation Ltd (Group) — 2023

Mr Stone was employed by 4th Dimension Innovation Ltd (Group) from 7 May 2004. The tribunal found that his role changed over time, including a move in 2020 to cover the Ride Nation dealership during the Covid-19 pandemic, when the parties agreed to a fixed bonus structure of £3,500 per quarter. It accepted that his annual income fell from pre-pandemic levels, but found that the bonus change was a mutually agreed verbal variation and that Mr Stone continued in employment for many months after becoming aware of the change.

The immediate trigger for the resignation was Mr Stone’s email of 19 June 2022 asking to start the process of working a four-day week. The tribunal found this was not a formal flexible working request within section 80F of the Employment Rights Act 1996 or the Respondent’s policy. Mr Molloy declined the request in a brief meeting on 27 June 2022, referring to workload. Although the tribunal accepted the process could have been handled better and that HR should have been involved, it found the refusal and the manner of handling did not amount to a repudiatory breach or a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence.

The tribunal also rejected the other matters relied on by Mr Stone. It found that the failure to move him from a 42.5-hour contract to a 37.5-hour contract was not arbitrary, capricious or inequitable, because the Respondent was rolling the change out incrementally for operational and financial reasons and Mr Stone’s department was later moved onto the shorter hours after he left. It also found that the discussion about the planned move to Yateley did not breach the mobility clause, because the move was not imminent and further consultation was still pending. On the bonus issue, even if there had been any breach in 2020, Mr Stone affirmed it by continuing in employment for over a year after he learned his income had reduced.

Taking the matters together, the tribunal concluded that none of them individually or cumulatively amounted to conduct likely to destroy or seriously damage trust and confidence. It also found the Respondent had reasonable and proper cause for its actions, including the refusal of the four-day-week request, the staged rollout of shorter-hour contracts, the pandemic-era bonus arrangement, and the proposed Yateley move. The claim for constructive unfair dismissal was therefore dismissed.