Tribunal hangs up on engineer’s unfair dismissal claim

Tuesday 21 May 2019

A telecoms engineer, who resigned from his job and claimed he had been unfairly sacked after going to France while on call and failing to answer his phone, has had his dismissal compensation claim rejected.

Philip Luce left his job as field engineer at Newtel Limited in August 2018 after 10 years in the job.

Mr Luce claimed before the Employment and Discrimination Tribunal that he had had to resign due to the fact his employer allegedly denied him “rest periods” and monitored his phone messages and work emails, as well as placing pressure on him not to leave his job, among other reasons.

Newtel, who was represented by Mr R. Hignett, a barrister from the UK, denied all the claims.

Pictured: The case came before the Employment Tribunal in April.

The case was heard by the Tribunal’s Deputy Chair, Michael Salter, in April. Mr Luce attended the Tribunal on the morning of the first day of the hearing but didn’t reappear after the lunch break. In an email to the Tribunal service, he asked why Newtel had hired a UK counsel and “how the Tribunal can give credibility to people who blatantly disregard the sanctity of the law.”

He described the appointment as “quiet [sic] unreasonable", branding the move as a “tactic” the Tribunal should take into account.

Mr Luce, who was representing himself for the proceedings, explained to the Tribunal that he worked weekdays and then on a rota over the weekend, with another field engineer. When he was on rota over the weekend, he was required to be contactable and on island to respond in case of an emergency.

In early July 2018, Mr Luce provided his resignation to Newtel, but eventually withdrew it after Newtel provided a “cool down” period and agreed to hold a pay review.

Pictured: Mr Luce resigned in early July but eventually withdrew his resignation.

On 18 August, Mr Luce was on rota to be on call. However, he went to France with his family without telling anyone at Newtel. He asked another employee of the company, whom Newtel said was not “suitable” to be included into the rotation, to cover for him.

An issue arose with the network on that day, and staff at Newtel made “various calls” to Mr Luce, some of which he didn’t answer. The Operation Director also texted Mr Luce asking him to call him back.

A couple of hours later, Mr Luce replied, saying: “…The level of pressure you are putting me on make matters untenable, I cannot work this way, I have had enough." 

Mr Salter noted in his judgment: “This text is at odds with the Claimant’s evidence to me that the contact between the Respondent and him on the 18th August was reasonable in its levels and reasonable in the very fact it occurred… 

“I find that it was entirely reasonable for the Respondent to believe the Claimant was on the rota: he was identified as being so and had not done anything to raise with them he was going away for that weekend.”

Pictured: Mr Luce went to France with his family on a weekend he was supposed to be on call.

Mr Luce missed the boat back from France and was then back at work on 21 August, when he was asked in a meeting by the Operations Director. During that meeting, he handed in his resignation. 

Two days later, Newtel wrote to him “urging” him to reconsider his resignation, but he confirmed it later that day.

The Operations Director made a similar request a few days later, asking Mr Luce if he had thought his resignation through and whether he had changed his mind, something Mr Luce described as “constant pressure” to rescind his resignation.

On 12 September, Mr Luce received a letter calling him to a disciplinary hearing, described as an “investigation meeting.” The same day, he was signed off work unwell by his GP.

Pictured: The Deputy Chairman found that Newtel had not been unreasonable when contacting Mt Luce on 18 August.

Mr Salter said the actions of the company on 18 August hadn’t breached the contract and the overall level of contact was “reasonable” - “where the Respondent was faced with a serious problem on its network that required the on-call rota’d field engineer to be contacted to resolve," Mr Salter's written judgment noted.

He also found that the calls were not “the last in a series of acts that cumulatively amounted to a breach.”

He rejected Mr Luce’s claim that there was “constant pressure” to withdraw his resignation and said the Operation Director hadn’t done anything “unreasonable.”

Mr Salter therefore dismissed Mr Luce’s claim for compensation due to constructive unfair dismissal, noting it was not “well founded.”