Mr D Hill v Respondent — 2019

The claimant was employed by the respondent as a Trainee Quantity Surveyor from 29 August 2016 to 7 January 2019. Applying the common law test for a contract of apprenticeship, the tribunal held that he was not retained under an apprenticeship but under a contract of service: the contract was described as employment, it was permanent rather than fixed term, and the work for the respondent was at least as significant as the training element. The claim for compensation based on alleged premature termination of an apprenticeship therefore failed.

On the constructive dismissal complaint, the tribunal found that the claimant was reinstated after the August 2018 disciplinary process on terms including a final written warning, drug testing, a mentor, a performance plan and a performance review. It accepted that the claimant had initially been delayed in receiving the car allowance because the signed form was not returned to HR, and found that his later complaints about exclusion from meetings, training and the commercial team were explained by the temporary move back to pre-construction work and by reasonable management responses to his performance and health. Applying Western Excavating, Malik and the last-straw principle in Omilaju, the tribunal held that the matters relied on, taken together, did not amount to a repudiatory breach of the implied term of trust and confidence.

The tribunal also rejected the claimant's assertion that his reinstated salary was £18,000. It found that the agreed position after reinstatement was that his salary would remain at £17,000 and that the reference to £18,000 had been made in error. The claimant's expense claim had been withdrawn, and the alleged wage deduction claim therefore did not succeed. The only monetary award was for holiday pay: the parties agreed that 7.5 days' accrued but unused holiday were due, and the tribunal awarded £421.43 using a daily rate of £56.19. The total award was £421.43.