Mr Paul Handzel v McCurrach UK Ltd — 2026

The claimant was employed by McCurrach UK Ltd from 2 February 2015 until 16 August 2024, when he resigned with notice after a series of exchanges about his performance, his health, and Unilever’s concerns. The tribunal found that the 13 May 2024 letter from Sean O’Brien invited him to a fact-finding investigation meeting, not a disciplinary hearing, and that the wording about emails being sent outside normal working hours should not have appeared in the investigation papers. It nevertheless accepted that the claimant resigned in response to cumulative events, with Mr O’Brien’s 10 July 2024 welfare letter as the alleged final straw, but held that the respondent’s conduct did not amount to a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence and so the constructive dismissal complaint was dismissed.

On the whistleblowing and working time complaints, the tribunal held that the claimant’s 28 April 2024 email contained a protected disclosure within section 43B because it raised workload, working conditions, and health and safety concerns in the public interest. It found that the later solicitor’s email of 23 May 2024 and the grievance meeting on 19 June 2024 repeated the working time allegation but did not contain any fresh disclosure. The tribunal found that Mr O’Brien’s repeated attempts to arrange welfare and investigation meetings were not materially influenced by the protected disclosure or by the working time allegation; rather, they were driven by the Unilever complaint, the claimant’s sickness absence, and a wish to support him. One detriment was found in relation to the repeated meeting requests, but the whistleblowing and working time claims were both dismissed because the causal element was not made out.

The tribunal also rejected the unlawful deduction from wages complaint. It found that the claimant had been overpaid in June and July 2024 because of a system/input error, that his August 2024 final salary contained a lawful correction for prior overpayments, and that the Occupational Offset figure of £5,370.69 on the August payslip was a retrospective calculation rather than an actual deduction. The actual August shortfall was £745.26 gross/£732.51 net, and the tribunal found that the contractual deduction clause and section 14(1) ERA 1996 authorised that correction. It therefore dismissed the wages claim and recorded that, after the August adjustment, a net overpayment of £733.26 remained outstanding.