Drone pilot who resigned after £51 overtime deduction loses constructive dismissal claim
A drone pilot who resigned after his employer deducted £51.58 for unauthorised overtime has lost his constructive dismissal claim. The tribunal found the deduction was lawful as recovery of an overpayment.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a drone pilot/inspection engineer from 14 January 2019.
- On 8 July 2022, the claimant was instructed not to travel beyond Torness without consent.
- On 12 July 2022, the claimant finished work at Torness and travelled to Peterhead without consent.
- The respondent deducted £51.58 from the claimant's September 2022 wages for unauthorised overtime.
- The claimant raised a grievance on 3 October 2022 and resigned the next day.
- The tribunal found the deduction was lawful as an overpayment recovery.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began employment as a drone pilot/inspection engineer.
-
Instructions given
Ben Jackson instructed claimant not to travel beyond Torness without consent.
-
Work at Torness
Claimant completed work at Torness power station.
-
Unauthorised travel
Claimant travelled to Peterhead without consent; text exchange with Ben Jackson.
-
Deduction noticed
Claimant noticed £51.58 deduction in September wages.
-
Grievance raised
Claimant emailed David Jackson raising a grievance about the deduction.
-
Resignation
Claimant resigned, claiming constructive dismissal.
-
ACAS early conciliation
ACAS notified of early conciliation.
-
ET1 presented
Claimant presented claim to tribunal.
-
Preliminary hearing
Employment Judge Heap held a preliminary hearing to case manage.
-
First hearing day
Substantive hearing commenced.
-
Second hearing day
Submissions and judgment given.
-
Judgment sent
Written reasons sent to parties.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether a £51.58 deduction from wages was an unauthorised deduction, and whether the deduction, together with the employer's failure to deal with a grievance and alleged retaliation, amounted to constructive dismissal.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed both claims. The deduction was found to be lawful as recovery of an overpayment for unauthorised overtime. The employer had instructed the claimant not to travel beyond Torness without consent, but he travelled to Peterhead anyway. The deduction was therefore an excepted deduction under section 14(1)(a) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The constructive dismissal claim failed because there was no fundamental breach of contract: the deduction was lawful, the grievance was not ignored (the claimant resigned the day after raising it), and the employer did not raise performance issues in retaliation.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you are paid overtime for work you did not have permission to do, your employer can later recover that money as an overpayment.
- Resigning the day after raising a grievance may not give your employer a reasonable chance to respond, weakening a constructive dismissal claim.
- Keep clear records of any instructions about travel or overtime authorisation to avoid disputes over what was agreed.
A dispute over £51 leads to resignation
This case shows how a relatively small sum can escalate into a tribunal claim when trust breaks down. The claimant, a drone pilot and inspection engineer, was told not to travel beyond Torness without consent. He later worked at Torness and then travelled to Peterhead without permission. His employer deducted £51.58 from his September wages to recover overtime paid for that unauthorised travel. The claimant raised a grievance by email on 3 October 2022 and resigned the next day, claiming constructive dismissal.
What the tribunal decided
The tribunal found the deduction was lawful. Under section 14(1)(a) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, an employer can recover an overpayment of wages. The overtime payment had been made by mistake – the claimant had not been authorised to travel to Peterhead. The deduction was therefore not an unauthorised deduction. On the constructive dismissal claim, the tribunal held that the employer had not fundamentally breached the contract. The deduction was lawful, the grievance had not been ignored (the claimant resigned too quickly), and there was no evidence of retaliation. The claims were dismissed.
What could have been done differently
The employer could have avoided the dispute by ensuring clear written authorisation for overtime and by discussing the overpayment with the claimant before making the deduction. The claimant could have waited for a response to his grievance before resigning, giving the employer a chance to resolve the matter. The case also highlights that tribunals expect parties to focus on the core issues – the judge noted that both sides had wasted time on irrelevant disputes over the hearing bundle.
Why this matters
This case is a reminder that not every deduction from wages is unlawful. Employers can recover overpayments, provided they follow the correct legal basis. For employees, resigning in the heat of the moment – especially without giving the employer a reasonable opportunity to address a grievance – can undermine a constructive dismissal claim. The outcome also shows that tribunals will look at the substance of the employer's actions, not just the fact that a deduction was made.
Similar cases
Cleaner complaint and grievance process: constructive dismissal claim fails
A customer service representative who resigned claiming constructive dismissal after a cleaner's complaint and a failed grievance has lost her case. The tribunal found no fundamental breach of trust and confidence.
Business manager's constructive dismissal claim fails over PIP process
A business manager with 8 years' service resigned after being invited to a second disciplinary hearing for underperformance. The tribunal found no breach of trust and confidence and dismissed his constructive unfair dismissal claim.
Commission scheme change: constructive dismissal claim fails as non-contractual benefit
A Business Development Manager who resigned after his employer changed his commission scheme lost his unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal found the commission was never contractual and the employer acted reasonably.
PWE sign-off delay: resignation over unauthorised absence meeting was not constructive dismissal
A graduate trainee accountant who resigned after being invited to a disciplinary meeting for unauthorised absence failed to prove constructive unfair dismissal. The tribunal found the employer's conduct did not breach trust and confidence.