Bus driver wins sick pay claim after employer withheld pay over disciplinary absence
A Watford tribunal found that Metroline West Ltd unlawfully deducted wages by withholding company sick pay from a bus driver who went off sick on the day of a disciplinary hearing. He was awarded £3,012.38.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a bus driver from 16 April 2007 until his resignation on 15 March 2017.
- The claimant was not paid company sick pay from 25 January 2017 to 15 March 2017, receiving only statutory sick pay.
- The respondent withheld company sick pay because the claimant went off sick on the day of a disciplinary hearing.
- The tribunal found that the respondent's policy did not allow withholding sick pay for that reason, constituting an unlawful deduction.
- The claimant's claims for discrimination, victimisation, and constructive dismissal were dismissed.
- The claimant was awarded £3,012.38 for the unlawful deduction.
Timeline
-
Employment commenced
The claimant started work as a bus driver with First Centre West, later transferred to Metroline West.
-
Incident with Mr Mota
The claimant reported Mr Mota for circling a roundabout three times and later for verbal abuse and threats.
-
Road traffic accident
The claimant was involved in a collision while driving a bus, due to drinking from a carton and not paying attention.
-
Written warning issued
The claimant received a 12-month written warning for the accident.
-
Altercation at depot counter
The claimant had a dispute with manager Mr Parry about rescheduling a disciplinary hearing.
-
Claimant went off sick
The claimant reported stress and did not attend the disciplinary hearing; he was signed off sick by his GP.
-
Letter withholding sick pay
Mr Parry wrote to the claimant stating company sick pay would not be paid.
-
Grievance rejected
Ms Carter rejected the claimant's grievance, including the request for company sick pay.
-
Resignation
The claimant resigned, claiming constructive dismissal.
-
Liability judgment
The tribunal found an unlawful deduction from wages but dismissed other claims.
-
Remedy hearing
The tribunal awarded £3,012.38 for the unlawful deduction.
-
Strike out and reconsideration refused
The remaining claim was struck out and reconsideration refused.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer unlawfully deducted wages by refusing to pay company sick pay, and whether the driver was discriminated against, victimised, or constructively dismissed.
The outcome
The tribunal decided that Metroline West Ltd unlawfully deducted wages by withholding company sick pay from 25 January to 15 March 2017. The driver's claims for discrimination, victimisation, and constructive dismissal were dismissed.
Compensation:
- Unlawful deduction of wages: £3,012.38
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers must follow their own policies when deciding whether to withhold sick pay – a blanket refusal based on the reason for absence may be unlawful.
- Resigning and claiming constructive dismissal is a high-risk strategy; the tribunal found no repudiatory breach here despite the unlawful deduction.
- Keep a clear record of any disputes with managers, as the tribunal weighed witness credibility carefully.
- A lay representative can succeed in a straightforward wages claim, but complex discrimination and constructive dismissal claims may need legal advice.
When sick pay becomes a battleground
This case shows how a dispute over a disciplinary hearing can spill over into a claim for unpaid sick pay. The bus driver, who had nine years' service, went off sick with stress on the day of a rescheduled disciplinary hearing. His employer, Metroline West Ltd, decided not to pay company sick pay, leaving him on statutory sick pay only. The tribunal found that the company's policy did not allow withholding sick pay for that reason, making the deduction unlawful.
What the employer could have done differently
Metroline West Ltd argued that the driver had gone off sick to avoid the disciplinary hearing, but the tribunal noted that the policy did not give them the right to withhold sick pay in those circumstances. A clearer policy or a more flexible approach might have avoided the claim. The company also faced criticism for the way the disciplinary process was handled, though the tribunal did not find that it amounted to a breach of contract or discrimination.
Why this result matters
This case is a reminder that employers must follow their own contractual and policy terms when dealing with sick pay. Even if they suspect an employee is avoiding a hearing, they cannot simply withhold pay without a clear contractual right. For employees, it shows that a successful claim for unlawful deduction of wages does not automatically mean a constructive dismissal claim will succeed – the bar for constructive dismissal is higher, requiring a fundamental breach of contract.
Similar cases
Constructive dismissal after flawed grievance process: DHL manager wins unfair dismissal claim
A warehouse first line manager with three years' service at DHL Services Limited resigned after a flawed grievance process. The tribunal upheld his claim for constructive unfair dismissal.
Constructive dismissal claim fails: no breach of trust and confidence at GP practice
A clinical administrator who resigned after a return-to-work dispute lost her constructive dismissal and disability discrimination claims. The tribunal found no breach of the implied term of trust and confidence.
Social worker's race discrimination claim over 'aggressive' stereotype dismissed
A black social worker with 15 years' service lost her claims of race discrimination and constructive dismissal after an altercation with a white colleague. The tribunal found no evidence of stereotyping or unfair treatment.
Black psychiatric nurse passed over for dual diagnosis lead role: race and sex discrimination upheld
A Black African community psychiatric nurse with 15 years' service was found to have been discriminated against when two white female colleagues were appointed to a specialist lead role he was qualified for. The tribunal upheld his claims of direct race and sex discrimination and harassment.