Claimant v ICTS (UK) Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the claimant resigned due to a mistaken belief that the respondent was reducing his pay without consent. The respondent had been completely fair and transparent, providing accurate information about the lower pay rate for the alternative baggage support officer role. There was no breach of contract by the respondent in response to the claimant's assertion of a statutory right, and no breach of contract at all. The claimant did not resign in response to conduct entitling him to terminate without notice.
The tribunal concluded there was no breach of contract by the respondent at all. The claimant mistakenly believed his pay rate would remain the same when moving to a baggage support officer role, but the respondent had clearly communicated the £13.05 hourly rate in the job description on 2 December 2024. The claimant's misunderstanding arose through no fault of the respondent, who acted reasonably throughout in offering alternative employment after the claimant failed mandatory x-ray competency tests.
Facts
The claimant was a security officer at Glasgow Airport who failed mandatory x-ray competency tests on four occasions. The respondent offered him alternative employment as a baggage support officer at a lower hourly rate (£13.05 instead of £13.42 plus 75p shift allowance). The respondent clearly communicated this rate in a job description on 2 December 2024, but the claimant mistakenly believed the advertised rate was incorrect and his pay would remain the same. On 2 January 2025, when presented with the contract amendment confirming the lower rate, he refused to sign, resigned immediately, and handed in his pass.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed the claim. While the claimant had asserted a statutory right in good faith (believing his pay was being unlawfully reduced), the respondent had not breached his contract. The respondent acted reasonably throughout, providing accurate information about the lower pay rate for the alternative role. The claimant's mistaken belief arose through no fault of the respondent. There was no constructive dismissal because there was no breach of contract.
Practical note
An employee's genuine but mistaken belief that their statutory rights have been infringed is insufficient for a constructive dismissal claim where the employer has acted transparently and reasonably throughout, and the employee's misunderstanding arose from their own error rather than employer conduct.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 8000041/2025
- Decision date
- 13 May 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- professional services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep
Employment details
- Role
- Security Officer
- Service
- 2 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No