Mr J Forrester v Ovec Systems Ltd — 2022

The claimant was employed as an engineer from 7 January 2019 and gave written notice of resignation on 30 September 2021, with the parties agreeing that his employment would end on Friday 29 October 2021. His offer of employment dated 5 December 2018 was treated as the contract of employment. It stated that salaries were paid monthly by the 30th of the month, that the first payment would be deducted by two weeks' lie time, and that holiday entitlement was 31 days per year.

The dispute arose after the claimant queried his October 2021 wages and lie-time repayment. On 25 October 2021 he exchanged WhatsApp messages with Ms Campbell and Mr Logan about payment timing. The tribunal accepted the respondent's account that the claimant's message to Mr Logan was an ultimatum and found that a reasonable employer would have understood it as a resignation with immediate effect. It rejected the claimant's argument that later messages about collecting belongings or being asked not to enter the premises amounted to dismissal. The tribunal also held that this was not a heat-of-the-moment resignation and that the special-circumstances exception in the resignation authorities did not apply.

The tribunal further found that there had been no variation of the written pay date by custom and practice. Although the claimant was usually paid on or around the 25th of the month, the contract still provided for payment by the 30th and the claimant had recently been reminded of that term. On that basis, the breach of contract claim for notice pay failed. The claim for accrued but untaken holiday pay also failed because the tribunal found that employment ended on 25 October 2021, not 29 October 2021.

On the unlawful deduction from wages issue, the tribunal held that the lie-time repayment due on termination was the same sum as had been deducted from the claimant's first wages payment. The offer of employment did not provide for repayment at a higher rate of pay. The claimant's claim for the net difference of £82.09 therefore did not succeed.