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.

Company That Labelled Employees as Self-Employed Receives Comeuppance

Many businesses that persist in labelling their employed staff as self-employed have met their comeuppance during the COVID-19 pandemic. That was certainly so in the case of a company that was ordered to pay compensation of more than £50,000 to a woman who was sacked after asserting her colleagues’ employment rights. The company ran a beauty salon at which the woman was engaged to work as PA to the founder and to provide treatments. Her contract was labelled as a consultancy agreement. When the…

Maternity Discrimination Victim Receives Substantial Compensation

Maternity leave should be a period of joy and tranquillity but, all too often, it is marred by discrimination. As an Employment Tribunal (ET) decision showed, however, employers who treat new mothers unfavourably can expect to pay a high reputational and financial price. The case concerned a group marketing director who was deeply upset by comments made by male colleagues after they heard of her pregnancy. One asked her when she had stopped taking contraception and how she thought having a…

COVID-19 Whistleblower Succeeds in Automatic Unfair Dismissal Claim

During the COVID-19 pandemic, many employees have complained that social distancing and other precautions were not enforced with sufficient rigour in their workplaces. As an Employment Tribunal (ET) ruling in a whistleblowing case made plain, employers are obliged to treat such concerns with the utmost seriousness. A sales assistant was extremely worried that rules in place to counter the pandemic were not being consistently followed in the shop where she worked. Amongst other things, she told…