Wilson Of Kendal Ltd

Case Summary

Mr Vickers, an HGV driver, claimed constructive dismissal, victimisation and disability discrimination arising from alleged backlash after seeking to accompany colleagues to workplace meetings, and resignation following onset of back condition flare-up. The tribunal found all complaints not well-founded and dismissed them, concluding that the treatment did not constitute unlawful victimisation or breach of statutory rights, and that the resignation did not amount to constructive dismissal.

The tribunal concluded that the treatment alleged by the claimant, while potentially unreasonable in some respects, did not amount to unlawful victimisation under the Employment Relations Act 1999 or constitute a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence sufficient to justify resignation and claim constructive dismissal, and that the disability discrimination and holiday pay complaints were also not substantiated on the evidence.

Use these claim-type pages to compare this decision with other published tribunal cases, outcome patterns, and visible award data.

• •Constructive dismissal following alleged breakdown in working relationship
• •Automatically unfair dismissal for accompanying colleague to disciplinary/grievance meeting
• •Victimisation for accompanying workers to meetings
• •Right to paid time off for accompanying worker to meeting
• •Failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability (back condition)
• •Unpaid holiday pay

2404347/2024 - 1 - EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant Respondent Mr I Vickers v Wilson of Kendal Limited Heard at: Manchester On: 17 to 21 November 2025 5 ,6 January 2026 (in chambers) Before: Employment Judge Kenward Ms C Metcalfe Mr B McCaughey Appearances For the Claimant: in person For the Respondent Ms R Jones (Counsel) RESERVED JUDGMENT (1) The complaint of unfair (constructive) dismissal (contrary to Employment Rights Act 1996 sections 94, 95(1)(c), 98 and 111) is not well-founded and is dismissed. (2) The complaint of automatically unfair dismissal by reason of having accompanied or sought to accompany another worker to a disciplinary and / or grievance meeting (contrary to Employment Relations Act 1999 section 12(3)) is not well- founded and is dismissed. (3) The complaint of victimisation by being subjected to detriment on the ground that the Claimant accompanied or sought to accompany another worker to a disciplinary and / or grievance meeting (contrary to Employment Relations Act 1999 section 12(3)) is not well-founded and is dismissed. (4) The complaint of failing to permit the Claimant to take time off during working hours for the purpose of accompanying another of the Respondent's workers to a disciplinary and / or grievance meeting (contrary to Employment Relations Act 1999 sections 10(1)(b) and (6)) is not well-founded and is dismissed. (5) The complaint of a failure to make reasonable adjustments (contrary to Equality Act 2010 sections 20 and 21) is not well-founded and is dismissed. 2404347/2024 - 2 - (6) The complaint of unpaid holiday pay (contrary to Working Time Regulations 1996 regulations 13, 13A and 30) is not well-founded and is dismissed. REASONS Introduction 1. These proceedings arise out of a breakdown in the working relationship between the…