Mr R Harris v Avocet H2O Limited — 2019

Mr R Harris worked for H2O Farm Limited from 1 July 2013 and continued after the business was acquired by the Avocet group. The tribunal found there was no written contract of employment or statement of particulars, but that the agreed salary after the acquisition was £30,000 a year, paid monthly in arrears. It also found there was no agreement allowing salary paid in some months above £2,500 gross to be set off against later months, and that the claimant had not been told he was required to register the outside businesses operating from his family farm.

The tribunal accepted that the claimant raised a grievance about the 22 May 2018 incident and about non-payment of salary. It found the respondent's handling of the grievance flawed because the claimant was not interviewed, was not given written confirmation of the outcome, and was not given a right of appeal. It also found that the May 2018 salary remained unpaid, that Mr Frost's emails of 23, 25 and 26 July 2018 were unfair criticism that undermined the claimant's position, and that Mr Commins did not answer the claimant's 27 July 2018 email asking whether he should consider his position. Taken together with the pay failure, those matters were held to amount to a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence, and the claimant resigned on 30 July 2018 in response.

The tribunal therefore found constructive unfair dismissal and held that there was no potentially fair reason for dismissal. It found no misconduct or contributory fault by the claimant, and no basis to reduce compensation. On remedy, it awarded a basic award of £2,286 and a compensatory award of £7,545.91 before a 15% section 207A uplift, producing a compensatory award of £8,677.80 and a total unfair dismissal award of £10,963.80. It also awarded £5,000 for unlawful deductions from wages, £115.38 for one day's accrued holiday, and £1,016 under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 for failure to provide written particulars.

The respondent's counterclaims were all dismissed. The £10,000 payment made from the respondent's bank account was found to have been authorised. The MBA fee claim failed because the agreement expressly excused repayment where employment ended in response to a fundamental breach by the employer, which the tribunal found had happened. The claim for recovery of May and July 2018 salary as alleged overpayments also failed because the prior higher monthly payments were not found to be overpayments.