Mr J MacKay v George Hanson (Building Contractors) Limited — 2019

The claimant brought a claim of unfair dismissal arising from an incident on a train on 27 October 2018, after which the respondent received two complaints about his language and conduct. The respondent’s position was that the claimant resigned of his own volition; the claimant said he had been dismissed. The tribunal heard evidence from the claimant, Mr Hanson and Mr Kernaghan, and accepted Mr Hanson’s account of the relevant conversations and events.

The tribunal held that Mr Hanson’s first conversation with the claimant on 29 October 2018 was an attempt to obtain the claimant’s account of the complaints, not a dismissal. Although the approach was described as robust and in the heat of the moment, the tribunal found that no unambiguous words of dismissal were used. It accepted evidence that the claimant had previously told Mr Kernaghan that he intended to leave for another job, and it found that the claimant said, during the 29 October exchange, that he was leaving that night and could get a job anywhere.

Later the same day, the tribunal found that both men had calmed down and the claimant again confirmed that he intended to resign, but wanted to work a fortnight’s notice. It also found that he subsequently worked his contractual five weeks’ notice and had many opportunities to withdraw his resignation between 29 October and 30 November 2018, which Mr Hanson would have allowed. The tribunal accepted Mr Hanson’s evidence that the severance payment equivalent to a redundancy payment was made because he liked the claimant and wished to end the relationship on good terms, not because he considered the claimant had been dismissed.

Applying the authorities it cited on resignation and dismissal in the heat of the moment, including Sothern v Franks Charlesly & Co and Martin v Yeoman Aggregates Ltd, the tribunal concluded that the claimant resigned on 29 October 2018 and was not dismissed. The unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed.