The claimant worked as a heating engineer for the respondent from January 2015 until he resigned in September 2019.   He subsequently claimed  constructive unfair dismissal.     When he began, the claimant’s contract stated that he would be required to travel to other locations as reasonable required and that he would be expected to work for 45 hours per week.  With the work of a heating engineer, much of the claimant’s time was spent at the clients’ premises or travelling to various suppliers to pick up parts.  From his evidence to the Tribunal, the claimant states that the work at the beginning was largely ‘local’ and that he would have approximately half an hour of travel time which was incorporated into his contractual hours.   However, in more recent times the distance increased and that he would be travelling between 5 and 6 hours a day which was on top of his contracted hours.  He states that he also no longer got early finishes that he would have got, especially during the Summer months.

In October 2018, the claimant was informed that the ‘unofficial travel rules’ had changed to the extent that the first hour and last hour of travel were unpaid (and that this change had been in place for about a year).   The claimant raised the issue with the company owner, Mr Robinson, who stated that travel is not included within the working day unless it is over an hour.   The general manager was then instructed by Robinson to investigate concerns about the claimant.   This included ‘dragging out’ jobs and refusing to work his contractual hours.    At the same time, the claimant issued formal grievances in relation the overtime he was due as well as being given the work with the furthest distance.  His grievances were rejected as well as the related appeal.   Following this, the claimant handed in his resignation on the basis that the grievances were not taken seriously and that they failed to reduce the excessive hours (inclusive of the travel time).

The Tribunal held that there had been constructive unfair dismissal.  This was on the basis that the principal reason for the claimant’s resignation was the travel pay issue.   This was a fundamental breach of contract and a fundamental breach of the implied term of trust and confidence that he had with the company.    There were other extraneous issues raised by the claimant in relation to working time and bullying but they were not upheld by the Tribunal.

Practical Lessons

This case demonstrates a number of pertinent issues when it comes to travel expected within work.  The Tribunal noted that for minimum wage regulations and working time issues the travel done within the course of work will be taken into account.  Whilst there was no evidence showing that the claimant was consistently working in excess of 48 hours a week (above the working time limit) it was found that the way in which travel was dealt with was contrary to the claimant’s contract and the subsequent resignation was sufficient for constructive unfair dismissal.  Employers with employees who travel within the course of their work should bear it in mind for the purpose of hours worked and the pay awarded.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5f47855c8fa8f5362b98f666/Mr_T_Holloway_v_Aura_Gas_Ltd_-_1405914.19.pdf