EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 8000565/2023 Held at Aberdeen on 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, & July 2024 Employment Judge N M Hosie Members P Hammond S Currie Mr Matthew Moore v Represented by, Mr J Frater, Solicitor Petrofac Facilities Management Ltd — 2024

The claimant, Matthew Moore, was employed by Petrofac from 14 July 2003 until his resignation on 12 July 2023. The tribunal considered a long-running dispute about a 2020 salary reduction, a later remuneration review request, repeated applications for secondary employment from December 2022 onwards, and a June/July 2023 dispute about a proposal for client work. It also considered his later grievance and the respondent's costs application.

On the salary reduction complaint, the tribunal found that the claimant accepted the April/May 2020 reduction, continued to work on the reduced salary for more than three years, and was not misled about the change. It rejected the argument that the reduction was a breach of contract, and also held that the complaint was not outstanding on termination and was out of time.

On secondary employment, the tribunal held that the handbook term required permission, but that the respondent withheld permission unreasonably. It found the initial refusal was based on a mistaken view that the proposed consultancy and training work was the same as the claimant's Petrofac role, and that the later process became unnecessarily obstructive because the respondent imposed expanding conditions, including requirements for client details, workscope and an RFQ, despite the claimant having described the proposed work and its limited time commitment. The tribunal upheld the breach but awarded no damages because the claimant did not prove the financial loss he alleged.

The tribunal then turned to constructive dismissal. Applying Western Excavating, Malik, Omilaju and Kaur, it held that the unreasonable handling of the secondary employment requests was a fundamental breach of contract and that the 4 July 2023 proposal/rate dispute concerning SBM work was the last straw that contributed to the implied term of trust and confidence. It found that the claimant resigned in response to that breach and that the dismissal was unfair under s.98(4) ERA 1996. A basic award of £17,040 was recorded, but compensatory loss was not quantified and was left for agreement or a remedy hearing.

The whistleblowing complaints were dismissed. The tribunal accepted that the claimant had made disclosures in the 27 March 2023 email and in the 16 June 2023 Teams meeting, but held that they were private employment disputes rather than disclosures made with a reasonable belief that they were in the public interest. It also found no evidential causal link between any protected disclosure and the alleged detriments or dismissal. The respondent's application for expenses was refused.