Claimant v Steel City Classics
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the respondent had an express contractual right at clause 8.5 to impose short-time working. The claimant had received and accepted the 2009 contract containing this clause, or at minimum had accepted it by signing the 2020 addendum which referenced it. The respondent gave adequate notice and acted reasonably in engaging this clause due to a genuine downturn in business. There was no breach of contract and therefore no constructive dismissal. The unsuitable working conditions (lack of heating/toilet facilities) did not constitute a fundamental breach in the context of ongoing building renovations, and in any event was not the operative reason for resignation. The change in job duties was an inevitable consequence of business downsizing, not a breach of contract, and had been affirmed by the claimant continuing in the role.
Facts
The claimant was employed as General Manager of a motorcycle dealership from May 2009, transferring under TUPE to the respondent in August 2024. Following the TUPE transfer, he worked at the respondent's Chesterfield site which had inadequate heating (only an electric heater in the office, no heating in the showroom or toilets) and on multiple occasions the toilet pipes froze. In January 2025, following a seasonal business downturn, the respondent imposed short-time working, reducing the claimant's hours and pay. The claimant resigned on 14 January 2025, citing the working conditions and the imposition of short-time working as reasons.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed the constructive dismissal claim. The respondent had an express contractual right to impose short-time working under clause 8.5 of the 2009 contract, which the claimant had accepted either on commencement or by signing a 2020 addendum referencing it. The respondent gave adequate notice and acted reasonably in exercising this right due to genuine business need. While the working conditions were unsuitable in some respects, this did not constitute a fundamental breach in the context of ongoing renovations and was not the operative reason for resignation.
Practical note
An employer with an express contractual right to impose short-time working or lay-off can lawfully exercise that right even if the employee claims not to have read the contract, provided the employee has accepted the contract (by conduct or signature) and reasonable notice is given; there is no implied term limiting lay-off to a 'reasonable' period.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6002269/2025
- Decision date
- 9 June 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- retail
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- General Manager
- Salary band
- £20,000–£25,000
- Service
- 16 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No