Luney v Charles Hurst Ltd [2014] NIIT 1381_13IT (03 October 2014)

Luney v Charles Hurst Ltd [2014] NIIT 1381_13IT (03 October 2014)

The tribunal found that the respondents' contractual clauses did not unambiguously permit unilateral and significant changes to the claimant’s working hours. The imposition of increased hours without agreement or compensation, and the handling of related grievances, cumulatively breached the implied term of mutual trust and confidence, amounting to constructive dismissal. There was insufficient evidence of victimisation or detriment arising from withdrawal from the Working Time Regulations opt-out.

Citation
[2014] NIIT 1381_13IT
Parties
Claimant: Gary Luney; Respondent: Charles Hurst Ltd; Respondent: Adrian Devitt; Respondent: Philip Sandford
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
03 October 2014
Procedural Posture
Industrial Tribunal / Liability Decision
Outcome
Claimant was unfairly constructively dismissed. No victimisation or detriment/dismissal for Working Time Regulations withdrawal found.
Legal Topics
Constructive Dismissal, Disability Discrimination, Victimisation, Contract Variation, Working Time Regulations
Employment Law Discrimination Law Constructive Dismissal Disability Discrimination Victimisation Contract Variation Working Time Regulations

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gary Luney

Claimant

Charles Hurst Ltd

Respondent

Adrian Devitt

Respondent

Philip Sandford

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Industrial Tribunal / Liability Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant was unfairly constructively dismissed under Articles 126 and 127(1)(c) of The Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996
  2. 2 Whether the respondents were aware of the claimant’s disability and failed to make reasonable adjustments under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995
  3. 3 Whether the claimant was victimised for protected acts under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal found that the respondents' contractual clauses did not unambiguously permit unilateral and significant changes to the claimant’s working hours. The imposition of increased hours without agreement or compensation, and the handling of related grievances, cumulatively breached the implied term of mutual trust and confidence, amounting to constructive dismissal. There was insufficient evidence of victimisation or detriment arising from withdrawal from the Working Time Regulations opt-out.

Court Disposition

Claimant was unfairly constructively dismissed. No victimisation or detriment/dismissal for Working Time Regulations withdrawal found.