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.

Employment Tribunals Can Spot a Sham Redundancy When They See One

It can be hard to distinguish an unfair dismissal from a genuine redundancy process. As was shown by the case of a property manager who found himself on the receiving end of his boss’s unjustified pique, however, Employment Tribunals (ETs) tend to know a sham when they see one. The founder of the business for which the man worked had taken strongly against him. During a recorded meeting, she made a number of offensive remarks about him in his absence. After he launched proceedings, an ET found…

Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Caused Delay in Lodging Discrimination Claim

Disability discrimination claims that are filed outside a three-month statutory time limit will usually be dismissed without a hearing – but what if the disability itself is the cause of the delay? That issue was considered in a guideline case concerning a trainee pharmacist who was stricken by chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS). The woman suffered from several long-term disabling conditions, including post-viral CFS. The condition was characterised by an overwhelming sense of fatigue and a chronic…

Restructuring Exercises and Redundancy – Guideline EAT Ruling

Not every corporate restructuring or cost-cutting exercise gives rise to a genuine redundancy situation. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) made that point in addressing a risk manager’s unfair dismissal claim. Following a review of its business with a view to cutting costs, the woman’s employer resolved to consolidate its three risk teams into two. She and another risk manager were warned that they were at risk of redundancy. Following consultation and a selection process – in which she was…