EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Nos: 4102744/2022 & 4102745/2022 Hearing at Edinburgh on 21, and June 2023 Employment Judge: M A Macleod (1) William Sorrie (2) Pamela Sorrie Samuel Smith Old Brewery (Tadcaster) v Represented by Mr J Lawson Solicitor — 2023

William and Pamela Sorrie were joint managers of the Cramond Inn under a 2018 agreement. After a meeting on 12 May 2021 about reopening the pub, the respondent wrote on 19 May 2021 saying Mr Sorrie should go on sick leave and offering a move to other premises. The tribunal found the respondent then dismissed the claimants on 14 December 2021 without warning, hearing or a clear reason, and that the appeal outcome of 31 March 2022 reinstated them with retrospective effect.

Applying section 95(1)(c) ERA 1996, Western Excavating v Sharp and the implied term of trust and confidence, the tribunal held that reinstatement meant the claimants should have been treated as if they had never been dismissed. It found that the respondent then failed to engage with them about pay, duties or a return to work, even when Mr Smith attended the pub in May 2022, and that the 25 July 2022 email stating they had been paid all monies due was an inadequate and unhelpful response. The tribunal held that this conduct undermined trust and confidence, that the July email was the final straw, and that the claimants resigned in response to that breach rather than affirming the contract.

The constructive unfair dismissal claims therefore succeeded. Mr Sorrie received a basic award of £1,471.14 and £500 for loss of statutory rights, totalling £1,971.14. Mrs Sorrie received a basic award of £1,471.14, a compensatory award of £1,946.16 for lost earnings, and £500 for loss of statutory rights, totalling £3,917.30. The tribunal did not identify a fair reason for dismissal under section 98(4) ERA 1996 because it treated the case as a constructive dismissal case and the respondent had not taken steps to effect or explain any dismissal reason.

The unlawful deductions from wages claims were dismissed. The tribunal found too much uncertainty to conclude that either claimant was entitled to salary or other wages during the disputed period after dismissal and reinstatement, given their sickness absence and the absence of clear evidence about when they would have been fit to resume work.