Claimant v SICO Europe Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the removal of the Hub storage facility did not breach any express or implied term of the claimant's contract of employment. The use of the Hub was a temporary procedure for receiving parts, not a contractual term. The respondent was entitled to revert to the previous practice of delivering parts to the claimant's home address, which had been the arrangement for 27 years prior to 2020. There was no fundamental breach of contract, so the claimant's resignation could not amount to a dismissal in law.
Withdrawn by the claimant during the hearing and dismissed under Rule 51 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024.
Facts
The claimant worked as a service engineer for 48 years. From 1992 to 2019, parts were delivered to his home address. Following complaints about this arrangement, from January 2020 the respondent rented a storage unit (the Hub) near his home for parts delivery and collection. In March 2024, the respondent closed the Hub for financial reasons and proposed reverting to home deliveries. The claimant refused to accept this and resigned in October 2024, claiming constructive dismissal on the basis that the removal of the Hub breached his contract of employment.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed the constructive dismissal claim. The use of the Hub was not a contractual term but a temporary procedure for receiving parts that could be changed by the employer. The Hub was leased on a monthly rolling basis and was never permanent. Reverting to home deliveries did not breach any express or implied term of the contract, as home delivery had been the arrangement for 27 years prior to the Hub. There was no fundamental breach of contract, so the claimant's resignation was not a dismissal in law.
Practical note
Temporary changes to working methods or procedures, even if in place for several years, do not necessarily become implied contractual terms unless there is clear evidence the parties intended them to be permanent and binding.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6011627/2025
- Decision date
- 21 October 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- manufacturing
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep
Employment details
- Role
- Customer Service Engineer
- Service
- 48 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No