In person For the v Respondent — 2025

Melvin Berango brought claims of constructive unfair dismissal and unauthorised deduction from wages. He resigned on 28 December 2023 and said the resignation was prompted by bonus disputes, weekly pressure over invoicing and funding, lack of trust and communication, strained relationships, and a warning issued without adequate investigation. The tribunal found the claimant's contract did not contain an express or implied right to a full December bonus, and that the bonus payments he had received were discretionary, linked to profitability, and paid in two parts across the financial year.

The tribunal rejected the allegations that the respondent had placed constant pressure on the claimant or otherwise destroyed trust and confidence. It found the communications about invoices, cash flow, wage funding and HMRC liabilities were largely within the claimant's invoicing role or outside his remit, and did not amount to conduct likely to destroy or seriously damage the employment relationship. Concerns about Christian Farquhar's departure and the business finances were genuine, but they did not found a repudiatory breach.

On the October 2023 warning, the tribunal accepted that the respondent intended an informal verbal warning, but the correspondence suggested a written warning and no prior investigation meeting had been held. Even so, the tribunal held that this procedural defect and the delay in arranging an appeal did not amount to a repudiatory breach: the claimant had an appeal available, the respondent scheduled a hearing for January 2024, and he resigned before that process was completed. The unlawful deduction from wages claim also failed because the contract provided only statutory sick pay; earlier full-pay sickness payments had been discretionary and did not create an implied contractual right. The tribunal found SSP was correctly paid during the notice period after resignation.