Latest in Employment Law>Case Law>United First Partners Research v Carreras [2018]
United First Partners Research v Carreras [2018]
Published on: 15/03/2018
Article Authors The main content of this article was provided by the following authors.
Legal Island
Background
The claimant worked as an analyst for the respondent, an independent brokerage and research firm. He began employment with the organisation in October 2011. He worked extremely long hours, typically from 8.00 am to 10.00 or 11.00 at night. 

The claimant began to suffer from dizziness, fatigue and headaches, and had difficulties concentrating and focusing after he was involved in a bad cycling accident. His injuries amounted to a disability and he was unable to work the same hours as before. Upon his return to work, the claimant worked a maximum of 8 hours per day. Gradually, and with some difficulty, he began to work longer hours. The respondent began to expect the claimant to work late rather than ask him whether he was able to work at all. 

The claimant took issue with two other aspects of his employment: the late payment of bonus instalments, purportedly owing to the respondent's cash-flow difficulties; and the provision of inaccurate earnings figures to the solicitors who were pursuing the personal injury claim arising out of his accident.  

On 14 February 2014, the claimant made a formal complaint by way of email objecting to working late in the evenings. That afternoon he engaged in a heated argument with one of the owners of the company and later resigned. 

The claimant brought proceedings for disability discrimination, specifically by failure to make reasonable adjustments contrary to sections 20-21 and 39 (5) of the Equality Act 2010 (equivalent to Section 4 of the Disability Discrimination Act in NI), and for unfair dismissal. The claimant argued his dismissal amounted to constructive dismissal owing to the respondent’s conduct. He argued he was entitled to resign as a result of a fundamental breach of contract by the respondent.

The ET rejected both claims. It concluded the respondent was aware of the claimant’s disability yet had not imposed the PCP complained of, namely, a requirement to work evening shifts, as the claimant was not “required” to work longer hours, and at most there was an expectation that he would do so. Furthermore, the tribunal held the claimant had not been constructively dismissed as he had not resigned “in response to” an alleged breach of contract. 

Allowing the claimant’s appeal the EAT held the tribunal had adopted an unduly narrow approach as to whether the claimant had been "required" to work evenings and that on its findings of primary fact it should have concluded that the expectation that he would do so constituted a PCP.

The EAT said the tribunal’s reasoning on the constructive dismissal issue was unsatisfactory, and that based on the primary facts the only possible conclusion was that the claimant had resigned in response to a fundamental breach on the part of the respondent.

The EAT found that there was a sequence of events culminating in the heated exchange on 14th February and that this amounted cumulatively to a fundamental breach of contract by the employers. It concluded the employer’s conduct was at least the immediate cause of the claimant's resignation.

By offering his resignation he clearly and unambiguously terminated the contract in circumstances in which (on the tribunal's finding of cumulative repudiatory breach) he was entitled to terminate it without notice by reason of the employer's conduct. The Court of Appeal held his claim of constructive dismissal should have succeeded accordingly. The Court therefore dismissed the employers' appeal on both issues.

Continue reading

We help hundreds of people like you understand how the latest changes in employment law impact your business.

Already a subscriber?

Please log in to view the full article.

What you'll get:

  • Help understand the ramifications of each important case from NI, GB and Europe
  • Ensure your organisation's policies and procedures are fully compliant with NI law
  • 24/7 access to all the content in the Legal Island Vault for research case law and HR issues
  • Receive free preliminary advice on workplace issues from the employment team

Already a subscriber? Log in now or start a free trial

Disclaimer The information in this article is provided as part of Legal Island's Employment Law Hub. We regret we are not able to respond to requests for specific legal or HR queries and recommend that professional advice is obtained before relying on information supplied anywhere within this article. This article is correct at 15/03/2018