Claimant v Single Source Regulations Office

The tribunal found that the respondent's letters of 6 March 2024 did not constitute an express dismissal. They were offers subject to contract which the claimant could accept or reject, and left open the opportunity for further consultation. The letters could not reasonably be interpreted as imposing new terms. No fundamental breach of the implied term of trust and confidence occurred as the respondent was merely seeking to negotiate revised terms and warning of potential termination on notice (which was a contractual right). The claimant was not expressly or constructively dismissed.

The tribunal found that the respondent seeking to agree revised terms (increasing hours from 0.8 FTE to 1.0 FTE without reducing pay) was not capable of amounting to a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. The respondent's conduct was aimed at maintaining the relationship and respected the claimant's right to accept or reject proposals. The claimant refused to negotiate at all. The warning that the respondent might exercise its contractual right to dismiss on notice was not a breach of contract.

The tribunal found that the regrading exercise did put employees aged 50+ at particular disadvantage (23% of those 50+ negatively affected vs 12% of under 50s). However, the respondent established the PCP was a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aims of ensuring fair, non-discriminatory pay based on objective job evaluation, managing equal pay risk, and ensuring value for money. The process was properly conducted, included two years' pay protection, consultation, independent expert review, appeal rights, and all affected employees except the claimant agreed revised terms. The claimant offered no alternative other than maintaining the status quo indefinitely.