Cases6015977/2024

Claimant v Capita plc

6 June 2025Before Employment Judge AE PittNewcastleremote video

Outcome

Claimant fails£399

Individual claims

Constructive Dismissalfailed

The tribunal found no breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. The respondent was entitled to suspend the claimant given the serious allegation of falsifying a document. The claimant was given sufficient information about the investigation from the outset. He had a point of contact in Mr Anderson and the respondent followed its own policies and ACAS guidance. The tribunal concluded the claimant resigned to take up new employment (which started 30 September 2024), not because of any breach by the respondent.

Unlawful Deduction from Wagespartly succeeded

The respondent admitted it underpaid the claimant £399.40 for September and October 2024 (when he should have received full pay during suspension but was paid only 50% for some days due to sick leave). This amount was repaid in January 2025. All other deductions claims failed: pension contributions were lawful and contractual; the claimant had already used more annual leave hours (178) than his pro-rated entitlement (150 hours) so was not owed holiday pay; the refund for the holiday purchase scheme was correctly made; and there was no contractual entitlement to recoup pay for holidays taken during suspension.

Facts

The claimant was a Disability Analyst conducting PIP assessments for the DWP. A PIP applicant complained that the claimant had falsely recorded a call to the Autism Inclusion Team. The respondent investigated; call logs from the claimant's known phone showed no such call. The claimant was suspended on 26 July 2024 and an investigation commenced. The claimant raised a grievance on 11 August 2024, had a job interview on 12 August, and resigned on 5 September 2024 giving four weeks' notice, during which he was on sick leave. He started new employment on 30 September 2024.

Decision

The tribunal dismissed the constructive dismissal claim, finding no breach of trust and confidence. The respondent acted reasonably in suspending and investigating the claimant, provided sufficient information, and followed its own policies. The claimant resigned to take up new employment, not in response to any breach. The tribunal upheld a minor unlawful deduction claim of £399.40 (already repaid) but rejected all other wages claims relating to pensions, holiday pay, and leave during suspension.

Practical note

An employer is entitled to suspend an employee pending investigation of a serious allegation (here, potential falsification of records) and the manner in which a suspension is communicated, even if imperfect, will not breach trust and confidence if the overall process is fair and reasonable.

Award breakdown

Arrears of pay£399

Award equivalent: 0.5 weeks' gross pay

Legal authorities cited

LBC Waltham Forest v Omilijau [2005] IRLR 35Western Excavating v Sharp [1978] ICR 221Malik v Bank of Credit and Commerce International [1998] AC 20Lewis v Motor World Garages [1996] ICR 157

Statutes

ERA 1996 s.98ERA 1996 s.95(1)(c)ERA 1996 s.13

Case details

Case number
6015977/2024
Decision date
6 June 2025
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
2
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
professional services
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Employment details

Role
Disability Analyst (Functional Specialist)
Salary band
£40,000–£50,000
Service
4 years

Claimant representation

Represented
No