December 16, 2024
Mr McIntosh was employed by DB Malorey Limited (the Employer) from April 2021 until December 2023, when he resigned, citing constructive unfair dismissal.
In May 2021, the Employer deducted £40 from Mr McIntosh’s wages in respect of a parking fine. There was no written agreement authorising this deduction. At the final hearing, the Employer conceded that the deduction was unauthorised and accepted liability to repay the £40 to Mr McIntosh.
Mr McIntosh also sought repayment for additional parking fines and the cost of a recovery truck used to retrieve his work van when it became stuck after he parked it. These costs were paid directly by Mr McIntosh and were not deducted from his wages by the Employer. When asked by the Tribunal on what legal basis the Employer was required to reimburse these sums, Mr McIntosh stated that it would be morally right to do so. The Tribunal rejected this argument and dismissed this part of the claim.
Mr McIntosh claimed that when insufficient work was available, he should nevertheless have been paid for 40 hours per week, as stipulated in his contract of employment. The Tribunal considered the relevant contractual terms, which included:
Hours of Work
The Employer’s typical working week is 40 hours per week between 8am and 4.30pm Monday to Friday. All working hours are to be agreed with the Employer and completed Monday to Friday unless otherwise instructed. Your monthly salary will be based on hours actually worked. Whilst the normal working hours are as stated, the Employer reserves the right to change working hours to suit business needs, to be agreed in advance.
Remuneration
You will be paid £26.00 per hour. Wages are payable monthly, on or around the 31st, by bank transfer, based on the hours worked in each pay month. A weekly timesheet must be submitted by 8am each Monday for the previous week. Failure to do so may result in delayed payment.
Holiday Entitlement
20 days (160 hours) per annum. Holidays are at the Employer’s discretion but will be granted where possible. Travel should not be booked prior to agreement.
The Tribunal concluded that the contract was not a zero-hours contract and that Mr McIntosh was expected to work an agreed number of hours each week. To enable this, the Employer was required to provide work. However, the express wording of the contract required payment only for hours actually worked. The Tribunal considered whether a term should be implied requiring payment for agreed hours regardless of whether they were worked. It reminded itself that an implied term must be necessary to avoid the contract being inefficacious or absurd, not merely to make it fair. The Tribunal held that implying such a term would contradict the express wording of the contract and was not necessary for the contract to operate. Mr McIntosh maintained that the Employer breached its obligation to provide 40 hours’ work per week and that he suffered financial loss as a result. However, the Tribunal found there was insufficient evidence to quantify any losses or determine liability and ordered that this issue be dealt with at a subsequent hearing.
In June 2022, Mr McIntosh took five hours off work after injuring his hand at work. He assumed he would be paid for this time. However, on 24 August 2022, the Employer informed him that the five hours had been treated as holiday pay and deducted from his remaining holiday entitlement. Mr McIntosh asserted that he had not agreed to this. The Tribunal held that an employee’s holiday entitlement cannot be automatically reduced because they are on sick leave, even if the sick leave would otherwise be unpaid. An employee must agree to take holiday while on sick leave.
Mr McIntosh resigned on 15 December 2023. The Employer accepted his resignation and offered him the option of working his notice or finishing earlier. Mr McIntosh chose to finish on 15 December 2023. Correspondence between the parties showed no animosity. Mr McIntosh claimed that he was entitled to resign due to the Employer’s conduct.
The Tribunal considered the alleged incidents relied upon, including a failure to pay one hour’s wages. It concluded that this was the only incident that amounted to a breach of contract. While a failure to pay wages can go to the heart of the employment contract, the Tribunal found that in this case there was a genuine dispute as to whether the hour of work was payable. As a result, the failure did not demonstrate an intention by the Employer to repudiate an essential term of the contract.
Mr McIntosh was employed by DB Malorey Limited (the Employer) from April 2021 until December 2023, when he resigned, citing constructive unfair dismissal.
In May 2021, the Employer deducted £40 from Mr McIntosh’s wages in respect of a parking fine. There was no written agreement authorising this deduction. At the final hearing, the Employer conceded that the deduction was unauthorised and accepted liability to repay the £40 to Mr McIntosh.
Mr McIntosh also sought repayment for additional parking fines and the cost of a recovery truck used to retrieve his work van when it became stuck after he parked it. These costs were paid directly by Mr McIntosh and were not deducted from his wages by the Employer. When asked by the Tribunal on what legal basis the Employer was required to reimburse these sums, Mr McIntosh stated that it would be morally right to do so. The Tribunal rejected this argument and dismissed this part of the claim.
Mr McIntosh claimed that when insufficient work was available, he should nevertheless have been paid for 40 hours per week, as stipulated in his contract of employment. The Tribunal considered the relevant contractual terms, which included:
Hours of Work
The Employer’s typical working week is 40 hours per week between 8am and 4.30pm Monday to Friday. All working hours are to be agreed with the Employer and completed Monday to Friday unless otherwise instructed. Your monthly salary will be based on hours actually worked. Whilst the normal working hours are as stated, the Employer reserves the right to change working hours to suit business needs, to be agreed in advance.
Remuneration
You will be paid £26.00 per hour. Wages are payable monthly, on or around the 31st, by bank transfer, based on the hours worked in each pay month. A weekly timesheet must be submitted by 8am each Monday for the previous week. Failure to do so may result in delayed payment.
Holiday Entitlement
20 days (160 hours) per annum. Holidays are at the Employer’s discretion but will be granted where possible. Travel should not be booked prior to agreement.
The Tribunal concluded that the contract was not a zero-hours contract and that Mr McIntosh was expected to work an agreed number of hours each week. To enable this, the Employer was required to provide work. However, the express wording of the contract required payment only for hours actually worked. The Tribunal considered whether a term should be implied requiring payment for agreed hours regardless of whether they were worked. It reminded itself that an implied term must be necessary to avoid the contract being inefficacious or absurd, not merely to make it fair. The Tribunal held that implying such a term would contradict the express wording of the contract and was not necessary for the contract to operate. Mr McIntosh maintained that the Employer breached its obligation to provide 40 hours’ work per week and that he suffered financial loss as a result. However, the Tribunal found there was insufficient evidence to quantify any losses or determine liability and ordered that this issue be dealt with at a subsequent hearing.
In June 2022, Mr McIntosh took five hours off work after injuring his hand at work. He assumed he would be paid for this time. However, on 24 August 2022, the Employer informed him that the five hours had been treated as holiday pay and deducted from his remaining holiday entitlement. Mr McIntosh asserted that he had not agreed to this. The Tribunal held that an employee’s holiday entitlement cannot be automatically reduced because they are on sick leave, even if the sick leave would otherwise be unpaid. An employee must agree to take holiday while on sick leave.
Mr McIntosh resigned on 15 December 2023. The Employer accepted his resignation and offered him the option of working his notice or finishing earlier. Mr McIntosh chose to finish on 15 December 2023. Correspondence between the parties showed no animosity. Mr McIntosh claimed that he was entitled to resign due to the Employer’s conduct.
The Tribunal considered the alleged incidents relied upon, including a failure to pay one hour’s wages. It concluded that this was the only incident that amounted to a breach of contract. While a failure to pay wages can go to the heart of the employment contract, the Tribunal found that in this case there was a genuine dispute as to whether the hour of work was payable. As a result, the failure did not demonstrate an intention by the Employer to repudiate an essential term of the contract.
Mr McIntosh was employed by DB Malorey Limited (the Employer) from April 2021 until December 2023, when he resigned, citing constructive unfair dismissal.
In May 2021, the Employer deducted £40 from Mr McIntosh’s wages in respect of a parking fine. There was no written agreement authorising this deduction. At the final hearing, the Employer conceded that the deduction was unauthorised and accepted liability to repay the £40 to Mr McIntosh.
Mr McIntosh also sought repayment for additional parking fines and the cost of a recovery truck used to retrieve his work van when it became stuck after he parked it. These costs were paid directly by Mr McIntosh and were not deducted from his wages by the Employer. When asked by the Tribunal on what legal basis the Employer was required to reimburse these sums, Mr McIntosh stated that it would be morally right to do so. The Tribunal rejected this argument and dismissed this part of the claim.
Mr McIntosh claimed that when insufficient work was available, he should nevertheless have been paid for 40 hours per week, as stipulated in his contract of employment. The Tribunal considered the relevant contractual terms, which included:
Hours of Work
The Employer’s typical working week is 40 hours per week between 8am and 4.30pm Monday to Friday. All working hours are to be agreed with the Employer and completed Monday to Friday unless otherwise instructed. Your monthly salary will be based on hours actually worked. Whilst the normal working hours are as stated, the Employer reserves the right to change working hours to suit business needs, to be agreed in advance.
Remuneration
You will be paid £26.00 per hour. Wages are payable monthly, on or around the 31st, by bank transfer, based on the hours worked in each pay month. A weekly timesheet must be submitted by 8am each Monday for the previous week. Failure to do so may result in delayed payment.
Holiday Entitlement
20 days (160 hours) per annum. Holidays are at the Employer’s discretion but will be granted where possible. Travel should not be booked prior to agreement.
The Tribunal concluded that the contract was not a zero-hours contract and that Mr McIntosh was expected to work an agreed number of hours each week. To enable this, the Employer was required to provide work. However, the express wording of the contract required payment only for hours actually worked. The Tribunal considered whether a term should be implied requiring payment for agreed hours regardless of whether they were worked. It reminded itself that an implied term must be necessary to avoid the contract being inefficacious or absurd, not merely to make it fair. The Tribunal held that implying such a term would contradict the express wording of the contract and was not necessary for the contract to operate. Mr McIntosh maintained that the Employer breached its obligation to provide 40 hours’ work per week and that he suffered financial loss as a result. However, the Tribunal found there was insufficient evidence to quantify any losses or determine liability and ordered that this issue be dealt with at a subsequent hearing.
In June 2022, Mr McIntosh took five hours off work after injuring his hand at work. He assumed he would be paid for this time. However, on 24 August 2022, the Employer informed him that the five hours had been treated as holiday pay and deducted from his remaining holiday entitlement. Mr McIntosh asserted that he had not agreed to this. The Tribunal held that an employee’s holiday entitlement cannot be automatically reduced because they are on sick leave, even if the sick leave would otherwise be unpaid. An employee must agree to take holiday while on sick leave.
Mr McIntosh resigned on 15 December 2023. The Employer accepted his resignation and offered him the option of working his notice or finishing earlier. Mr McIntosh chose to finish on 15 December 2023. Correspondence between the parties showed no animosity. Mr McIntosh claimed that he was entitled to resign due to the Employer’s conduct.
The Tribunal considered the alleged incidents relied upon, including a failure to pay one hour’s wages. It concluded that this was the only incident that amounted to a breach of contract. While a failure to pay wages can go to the heart of the employment contract, the Tribunal found that in this case there was a genuine dispute as to whether the hour of work was payable. As a result, the failure did not demonstrate an intention by the Employer to repudiate an essential term of the contract.
Mr McIntosh was employed by DB Malorey Limited (the Employer) from April 2021 until December 2023, when he resigned, citing constructive unfair dismissal.
In May 2021, the Employer deducted £40 from Mr McIntosh’s wages in respect of a parking fine. There was no written agreement authorising this deduction. At the final hearing, the Employer conceded that the deduction was unauthorised and accepted liability to repay the £40 to Mr McIntosh.
Mr McIntosh also sought repayment for additional parking fines and the cost of a recovery truck used to retrieve his work van when it became stuck after he parked it. These costs were paid directly by Mr McIntosh and were not deducted from his wages by the Employer. When asked by the Tribunal on what legal basis the Employer was required to reimburse these sums, Mr McIntosh stated that it would be morally right to do so. The Tribunal rejected this argument and dismissed this part of the claim.
Mr McIntosh claimed that when insufficient work was available, he should nevertheless have been paid for 40 hours per week, as stipulated in his contract of employment. The Tribunal considered the relevant contractual terms, which included:
Hours of Work
The Employer’s typical working week is 40 hours per week between 8am and 4.30pm Monday to Friday. All working hours are to be agreed with the Employer and completed Monday to Friday unless otherwise instructed. Your monthly salary will be based on hours actually worked. Whilst the normal working hours are as stated, the Employer reserves the right to change working hours to suit business needs, to be agreed in advance.
Remuneration
You will be paid £26.00 per hour. Wages are payable monthly, on or around the 31st, by bank transfer, based on the hours worked in each pay month. A weekly timesheet must be submitted by 8am each Monday for the previous week. Failure to do so may result in delayed payment.
Holiday Entitlement
20 days (160 hours) per annum. Holidays are at the Employer’s discretion but will be granted where possible. Travel should not be booked prior to agreement.
The Tribunal concluded that the contract was not a zero-hours contract and that Mr McIntosh was expected to work an agreed number of hours each week. To enable this, the Employer was required to provide work. However, the express wording of the contract required payment only for hours actually worked. The Tribunal considered whether a term should be implied requiring payment for agreed hours regardless of whether they were worked. It reminded itself that an implied term must be necessary to avoid the contract being inefficacious or absurd, not merely to make it fair. The Tribunal held that implying such a term would contradict the express wording of the contract and was not necessary for the contract to operate. Mr McIntosh maintained that the Employer breached its obligation to provide 40 hours’ work per week and that he suffered financial loss as a result. However, the Tribunal found there was insufficient evidence to quantify any losses or determine liability and ordered that this issue be dealt with at a subsequent hearing.
In June 2022, Mr McIntosh took five hours off work after injuring his hand at work. He assumed he would be paid for this time. However, on 24 August 2022, the Employer informed him that the five hours had been treated as holiday pay and deducted from his remaining holiday entitlement. Mr McIntosh asserted that he had not agreed to this. The Tribunal held that an employee’s holiday entitlement cannot be automatically reduced because they are on sick leave, even if the sick leave would otherwise be unpaid. An employee must agree to take holiday while on sick leave.
Mr McIntosh resigned on 15 December 2023. The Employer accepted his resignation and offered him the option of working his notice or finishing earlier. Mr McIntosh chose to finish on 15 December 2023. Correspondence between the parties showed no animosity. Mr McIntosh claimed that he was entitled to resign due to the Employer’s conduct.
The Tribunal considered the alleged incidents relied upon, including a failure to pay one hour’s wages. It concluded that this was the only incident that amounted to a breach of contract. While a failure to pay wages can go to the heart of the employment contract, the Tribunal found that in this case there was a genuine dispute as to whether the hour of work was payable. As a result, the failure did not demonstrate an intention by the Employer to repudiate an essential term of the contract.