Hartwell Services Ltd v Chambers

An Employment Tribunal must determine every substantive issue that is properly raised and material to the claim. In a constructive-dismissal case, the Tribunal must identify the alleged contractual breaches and decide whether the employer’s conduct was a repudiatory breach or merely a proposal for future discussion. The employer’s uncommunicated subjective motives do not themselves determine whether the contract was repudiated, but the timing and purpose of its conduct may be relevant to the objective meaning of what was said and done. An Employment Appeal Tribunal may interfere only where the Employment Tribunal made an error of law. Failing to resolve a central factual issue relevant to that legal question is an error of law.

The respondent resigned from employment after being told that he might move from business manager to sales executive at another depot, with a substantial reduction in salary and commission. He alleged constructive dismissal, relying on the proposed demotion, the treatment he received at work, and the employer’s appointment of another business manager during his holiday.

The Employment Tribunal found that he had resigned and had not been dismissed. The Employment Appeal Tribunal allowed his appeal and remitted the claim to a differently constituted Tribunal. The employer appealed, arguing that the Employment Tribunal had made permissible findings of fact and that the Employment Appeal Tribunal had permitted a new point to be raised. The central issue was whether the Employment Tribunal had failed to determine a material part of the constructive-dismissal case.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Employment Appeal Tribunal had jurisdiction to interfere because the Employment Tribunal’s decision was legally flawed. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
2. In a second-tier appeal, the proper question is whether the Employment Tribunal erred in law. Without such an error, the Employment Appeal Tribunal has no jurisdiction to interfere.
3. The Employment Tribunal had to identify the alleged contractual breaches, decide whether they were proved, and determine whether they amounted, singly or cumulatively, to a repudiatory breach entitling the employee to resign.
4. The employee’s case included the contention that the proposed move was a sham designed to make room for another business manager. That issue was plainly raised in the material before the Employment Tribunal and was relevant to whether the proposal was genuine or was instead a fait accompli amounting to a repudiatory breach.
5. The Employment Tribunal recorded the competing positions but made no clear finding on whether the employer intended to permit the employee to return to his existing role. Its failure either to decide that issue or to resolve it by applying the burden of proof was an error of law.
6. Uncommunicated subjective motives are not by themselves determinative. Nevertheless, the employer’s motives may be relevant to the objective assessment of its conduct, including whether what was said and done amounted to a proposal or an imposed contractual change.
7. The Employment Appeal Tribunal had not permitted a genuinely new point. A fact-finding tribunal must address substantive points properly raised before it; adopting an unduly formalistic view of the pleaded particulars was inappropriate.
8. The matter was to be remitted to a differently constituted Employment Tribunal unless resolved by agreement or alternative dispute resolution. The Court expressed no view on the facts.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: On 11 January 2000, allowed the employee’s appeal from the Employment Tribunal and remitted the matter to a differently constituted Employment Tribunal.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Dismissed the employer’s appeal with costs and confirmed that the case required determination by a differently constituted Employment Tribunal.