Mr O Price v Telecom Service Centres Ltd T/a Webhelp UK: 2604511/2020
| Judgment Date | 26 July 2021 |
| Citation | 2604511/2020 |
| Published date | 06 August 2021 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Unfair Dismissal |
Case 2604511/2020
Page 1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: Mr O Price
Respondent: Telecom Service Centres Ltd t/a Webhelp UK
Heard at: Nottingham by Cloud Video Platform (Claimant attended in person)
On: 4 and 5 May 2021
Before: Employment Judge Broughton (sitting alone)
Representation
Claimant: In person (In Person)
Respondent: Mr A Maxwell, Solicitor (via CVP)
Covid-19 statement:
This was a remote hearing. The parties did not object to the case being heard remotely. The form
of remote hearing was V – video. It was not practicable to hold a face-to-face hearing because of
the Covid-19 pandemic.
RESERVED JUDGMENT
The decision of the Tribunal is that:
• The claim of unfair (constructive) dismissal is dismissed on withdrawal by the Claimant
• The Claimant’s claim to a redundancy payment under section 135 (1) (a) of the Employment
Rights Act 1996, is not well founded and is dismissed.
• The Claimant’s claim to a redundancy payment under section 135 (1) (b) of the Employment
Rights Act1996, is not well founded and is dismissed.
• The Claimant’s claim of an unlawful deduction of wages pursuant to section 13 of the Employment
Rights Act 1996 is not well founded and is dismissed.
REASONS
Background
Case 2604511/2020
Page 2
1. The Claimant was employed by the Respondent from 4 September 2017 until 7 October 2020,
following his resignation. He was employed as a Contact Centre Associate. He had accrued 3 full
years’ service as at the date of termination.
2. The Claimant makes a claim for unpaid wages for the period 10 April 2020 to 7 October 2020. It
is not in dispute between the parties that he was not paid his salary during this period and it is not
in dispute that the amount of salary that he would have otherwise been entitled to receive is a net
figure of £7,787.57. That figure is not in dispute.
3. The Claimant also makes a claim for a redundancy payment and the parties are in agreement that
the sum, if he is found to be entitled to a statutory redundancy payment, would be £1,553.99.
4. The Claimant issued his claim on 31 December 2020 following a period of ACAS Early Conciliation
from 6 November 2020 to 6 December 2020.
5. The claims arise from the closure of the Claimant’s place of work in Derby because of the Covid
pandemic. The Claimant was not permitted to carry out his duties from the Derby site from 26 April
2019. He refused to carry out his work from his home address and was not, because of that, paid
his salary for almost 6 months. The Claimant complains that the failure to pay him salary was an
unlawful deduction and that he resigned in circumstances which amount to a constructive unfair
dismissal on the grounds of redundancy and in the alternative he claims a redundancy payment
under the layoff provisions in Chapter III Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA ).
6. The Claimant pursues the following claims in summary;
6.1 Unauthorised deduction of wages: section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA): for backpay
during the period 10 April 2020 to the date of termination on 7 October 2020
6.2 A redundancy Payment: section 135 (1) (a) or (b) ERA
The issues
7. The issues that were agreed between the parties, are as follows.
Unauthorised deductions – section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996
Were the wages paid to the Claimant during the period 10 April 2020 to 7 October 2020 less than
the wages he should have been paid?
Was any deduction required or authorised by a written term of the contract? The Respondent
relies on clause 3 of the contract of employment (Contract of Employment).
It is not in dispute that the Claimant received a copy of the Contract of Employment before the
deduction.
It is not alleged by the Respondent that the Claimant agreed in writing to the deduction before it
was made. The Respondent relies upon the terms of the Contract of Employment itself.
Redundancy payment
Statutory scheme –section 135 (1)(b) Employment Rights Act 1996
Case 2604511/2020
Page 3
Is the employee employed under a contract on terms and conditions such that his remuneration
under the contract depends on him being provided by the employer with work of a kind which he
is employed to do pursuant to section 147(1)(a) of the Employment Rights Act 1996?
Was the employee not entitled to any remuneration under the contract in respect of the week
because the employer did not provide work for him pursuant to section 147(1)(b) Employment
Rights Act 1996?
Was the employee laid off for four or more consecutive weeks pursuant to section 148(2)(a)
Employment Rights Act 1996?
Did the employee serve notice pursuant to section 148(2) on the employer?
Did the employer give to the Claimant within 7 days after service of that notice, a counternotice
pursuant to section 149(a)?
Did the Claimant terminate his contract of employment by giving notice in accordance with section
150 of the Employment Rights Act 1996?
Was the Claimant required under section 150(2) to give notice - did he give the notice required
under his contract of employment?
Claim under section 135 (1)(a) Employment Rights Act 1996
Did the Claimant terminate the contract of employment under which he was employed with or
without notice in circumstances in which he was entitled to terminate it without by reason of the
employer’s conduct pursuant to section 136(1)(c) Employment Rights Act 1996?
The employee relies upon the following alleged breaches as reasons for resigning:
(i) Unfavourable treatment in that he was singled out and treated differently to a
colleague, Stephen Barker because he is a socialist and had been holding Eurostar (the
Respondent’s client) to their conditions of carriage in that he had been offering customers
refunds rather than vouchers – he relies on a breach of the implied duty of trust and
confidence.
(ii) He should have been treated as laid off under the statutory scheme rather than put
on unpaid leave and his manager refused to confirm this in writing –he relies on a breach
of the implied duty of trust and confidence – during the course of the hearing, the Claimant
refined this allegation to a refusal by his manager, to confirm to DWP that he was ‘ laid’ off
when the Claimant was applying for benefits.
(iii) The Claimant believed that he would be made to work for Eurostar in Kent following
a proposed TUPE transfer in October 2020 or dismissed if he refused to do so.
He believed he had ‘burnt his bridges’ and all trust in his employer had gone for the above
stated reasons.
Did the Respondent behave in a way that was calculated or likely to destroy or seriously
damage the trust and confidence between the Claimant and the Respondent, and
To continue reading
Request your trial