Claimant v Halfords Autocentres Ltd — 2022

The claimant worked for Halfords Autocentres Ltd in management roles and resigned on 29 November 2021 while signed off sick with chest pains, stress and anxiety. The tribunal accepted that his resignation followed a series of workplace events, including disciplinary action over a customer complaint in early 2020, later concerns about a colleague at Kirkintilloch who faced a criminal case, and a grievance investigation after a complaint by another employee, Mr Naqvi.

On the constructive dismissal claim, the tribunal went through the claimant's pleaded complaints one by one. It held that there was nothing improper in the notetaker asking questions during the 30 July 2021 investigation meeting, that the 13 August 2021 meeting was properly treated as a disciplinary hearing and then paused for HR advice, and that there was no breach of contract in restarting the process with a different investigator. It also found that the claimant had misunderstood the allegations against him: he was not blamed for Mr Fleming's arrest or for Mr O'Donnell's reference, but for failing to report or act on matters within his own management responsibilities.

The tribunal found that the final written warning issued on 10 September 2021 was based on those management failures and that, even if another manager might have dismissed him, the warning was lenient rather than contract-breaking. It also found that the investigation into Mr Naqvi's grievance, including issues about nicknames and air freshener, was a reasonable response to a serious complaint and not a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. The tribunal rejected the claimant's complaints about targets, staffing, holiday, and lack of contact during sickness absence, holding that Mr Quinn had no contractual duty to keep in touch and that his responses to emails were reasonable.

The claimant amended his case to say that what Ms Sheret allegedly said on 29 November 2021 was the last straw. The tribunal found it was not credible that Mr Pepper had told the claimant all of the details of Ms Sheret's interview, and in any event it held there was no underlying breach capable of supporting a last straw argument. Applying the constructive dismissal authorities it cited, including Western Excavating, Malik, Woods v WM Car Services, Omilaju, and Kaur, the tribunal concluded that the respondent's conduct taken individually or cumulatively did not amount to a repudiatory breach and that the claimant was not constructively dismissed.

On the wages claim, the tribunal accepted that the respondent's payroll system used different periods for salary and sickness absence and that the December 2021 deduction reflected unpaid absence across the November and December accounting periods. Although it described the spreadsheet explanation as confusing in places and noted a discrepancy between £2,673.60 and £2,673.69, it was satisfied that the deduction was broadly accurate and that the claimant had not proved an unlawful deduction from wages.