In the case of Mr P Burns v Recycled Packaging Ltd a Scottish recycling company has been ordered to pay more than £17,000 to a former employee who claimed unfair dismissal.
An employment tribunal said that Recycling Packaging Ltd must pay the sum to P Burns for “constructive unfair dismissal” after the driver’s hours had been reduced during the pandemic.
The cardboard and paper merchant was ordered to pay £10,732 for unfair dismissal and £6,440 for unlawful deduction of wages.
The tribunal heard that Burns, a Class 2 driver with the company for 12 years, had seen his hours reduced from his contracted five days to three days in April 2020 even as a colleague in a similar role was placed on furlough.
Having accepted the reduced hours and been assured his hours would be restored when Class 2 driving work was required, he was presented with a new contract in January 2021 making the transition to part-time work permanent.
Although he had made it clear on multiple occasions that he did not accept these new terms and wished to return to his full contracted working week, Recycling Packaging claimed that Burns had tacitly accepted the new contract by continuing to work.
“The tribunal had no hesitation in finding that the claimant had not accepted the change,” said the published judgement. “The claimant had been commendably understanding in accepting earlier reductions in his working hours without consultation and without explanation as to why he was being treated differently from others.
“At the time in January 2021 when he withdrew his agreement, the respondent acted in a material breach of contract by persisting in providing him with, and paying him for, hours lower than those to which he was contractually entitled.”
With more staff being taken on in roles for which Burns was qualified as he made repeated requests to have his full hours restored, relations between the company and Burns subsequently deteriorated.
Recycling Packaging’s approach was described by the tribunal to have been “entrenched” and “uncompromising”, leading to disciplinary actions against the employee after he had refused to attend an informal meeting the tribunal felt had been “seeking to short-circuit the grievance process”.
Burns was subsequently given a final warning from the company, leading to his resignation. The tribunal agreed with the employee’s claims that he had been singled out in this process and upheld
This provides summary information and comment on the subject areas covered. Where employment tribunal and appellate court cases are reported, the information does not set out all of the facts, the legal arguments presented and the judgments made in every aspect of the case. Employment law is subject to constant change either by statute or by interpretation by the courts. While every care has been taken in compiling this information, we cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions. Specialist legal advice must be taken on any legal issues that may arise before embarking upon any formal course of action.
