HGV Driver’s Resignation Defeats Unfair Dismissal Claim

An HGV driver’s unfair dismissal claim has been rejected after the Employment Tribunal (ET) found that his employment contract had already been brought to an end by his resignation.

After he was observed to have veered while eating a sandwich when driving, the driver’s employer advised…

Jun 28, 2024

Pexels mikebirdy 192364 1024x768

An HGV driver’s unfair dismissal claim has been rejected after the Employment Tribunal (ET) found that his employment contract had already been brought to an end by his resignation.

After he was observed to have veered while eating a sandwich when driving, the driver’s employer advised him of a disciplinary hearing to be held the following week. That weekend he gave a week’s notice of his resignation, as required by his employment contract. He attended the hearing, which took place the day before his last day. At 4.55pm on his last day, around ten minutes after he had finished work and left his employer’s premises, he was sent an email summarily dismissing him for gross misconduct.

He brought a claim for unfair dismissal. The ET considered as a preliminary issue whether his employment had ended upon his resignation or continued long enough to be terminated by dismissal.

He argued that his employer could have called him back for additional work on his last day, on the basis that he remained employed until midnight, but upon further questioning he accepted that this was not a realistic possibility. Having driven all day, he would not have been able to drive again.

The ET noted that it was established by case law that employment contracts come to an end at a time agreed between the parties, and dismissal takes effect when it is communicated to the employee or when the employee can reasonably be considered to have read the dismissal notice.

The ET found that the driver had considered his employment to be at an end when he left at about 4.45pm. Neither he nor the employer had a realistic thought that he would be called back to work, and the ET did not consider that the email sent at 4.55pm should be taken as continuing his employment until then. His employment contract had therefore ended by reason of his resignation and he was not dismissed. Noting that his claim was not a constructive dismissal claim, the ET ruled that it was bound to fail.

Man Who Worked for Membership Association Was an Employee

The Employment Tribunal (ET) has ruled that a man who worked for a membership association which acted on behalf of free-range egg producers was an employee rather than a self-employed contractor. The man began working for the association in 2011 as Policy Director, going on to become Chief Executive in 2016. He was required to work a set number of days per week and invoiced the association monthly for the work he had performed, plus travel and accommodation expenses. In March 2023 he was given…

Whistleblowing and the Need to Prove a Causal Link – Guideline Ruling

In order to succeed in a workplace whistleblowing claim, it is not enough merely to prove that you have made a protected disclosure. As one case showed, it is also necessary to establish a causal link between the disclosure and any detrimental treatment to which you have been subjected. The case involved a senior employee in a bank’s audit department. In a draft report, she expressed concerns about the bank’s risk exposure arising from a certain legal agreement. There was no dispute that she…

Whistleblowing and the Importance of Proving Motive – Guideline Ruling

Establishing that an employee has made a protected disclosure is the first step on the path to success in any whistleblowing claim. However, as a case concerning a dismissed care homes manager showed, it is often much harder to prove that detrimental treatment is motivated by such a disclosure. The woman had been in post for only about six months when she was dismissed at the end of her probationary period. Her employer asserted that she was dismissed on grounds of capability or performance.…