Dump truck driver removed from client site: resignation, not dismissal
A dump truck driver on a zero-hours contract claimed he was unfairly dismissed after being removed from a client site, but the tribunal found he resigned. His claim failed.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
- #zero-hours-contract
- #resignation
- #client-site-removal
- #daily-emails
- #contemporaneous-documents
Key facts
- The claimant worked as a dump truck driver for the respondent on a zero-hours contract since 1 March 2016.
- On 8 February 2023, the claimant was removed from a client site at Uxbridge due to a PPE dispute and attitude issues.
- The claimant immediately called Paul Morrison, the general manager, and claimed he was told he was 'laid off'.
- The respondent continued to email internally seeking work for the claimant after 8 February 2023.
- On 8 March 2023, the claimant accepted a self-employed role through an umbrella company, resigning from his employment.
- The tribunal found the claimant was not dismissed but resigned, and his unfair dismissal claim failed.
Timeline
-
Employment start date
The claimant started employment with the respondent as a dump truck driver on a zero-hours contract.
-
Removed from Uxbridge site
The claimant was removed from the Uxbridge client site due to a PPE dispute and attitude issues. He called Paul Morrison and claimed he was told he was 'laid off'.
-
PM's daily email
Paul Morrison sent an internal email stating the claimant had been 'sacked from Uxbridge' and began seeking new work for him.
-
First email seeking work for claimant
PM emailed the sales team stating 'Willie Aitchison available for suitable employment'.
-
Email noting need to discuss situation
PM emailed: 'Willie Aitchison still available – need to discuss his situation next week'.
-
Claimant sought benefits advice
The claimant went to claim employment benefits and was signposted to seek legal advice.
-
AS's email about final chance
Managing Director Andrew Stevens emailed that the claimant should be offered the next job as a 'final chance'.
-
Claimant resigned
The claimant signed a self-employed contract with an umbrella company to work at a Blackpool site, thereby resigning from his employment.
-
Holiday pay paid
The respondent paid the claimant's accrued holiday pay.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was dismissed by his employer or resigned, and whether any dismissal was unfair or by reason of redundancy.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claimant's unfair dismissal claim. It found that the claimant resigned on 8 March 2023 when he signed a self-employed contract with an umbrella company to work at a Blackpool site. He was not dismissed, made redundant, or entitled to notice or holiday pay beyond what was already paid.
- The respondent continued to seek work for the claimant after the site removal.
- The claimant's own actions (accepting a self-employed role) amounted to a resignation.
- No compensation awarded.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you are removed from a client site, check with your employer whether you are still employed before assuming you have been dismissed.
- Accepting another job while still employed may be treated as a resignation, even if you believe you have been laid off.
- Keep records of all communications with your employer after a dispute — contemporaneous emails can be crucial evidence.
- On a zero-hours contract, being removed from a client site does not automatically mean dismissal; your employer may still be seeking alternative work for you.
When removal from a client site is not dismissal
This case shows that being removed from a client site does not always amount to a dismissal, especially for workers on zero-hours contracts. The claimant, a dump truck driver, was taken off a site at Uxbridge after a PPE dispute. He immediately called his manager and believed he had been told he was 'laid off'. However, the respondent's internal emails showed they were actively trying to find him new work.
What the employer did right
Stevens Equipment Rental Limited continued to email internally seeking work for the claimant. Emails from the general manager and managing director showed they were looking for suitable placements. The tribunal placed significant weight on these contemporaneous documents, which contradicted the claimant's belief that he had been dismissed.
Why the claim failed
The tribunal found that the claimant resigned on 8 March 2023 when he accepted a self-employed role through an umbrella company. He did not give the respondent a chance to offer him further work. The legal test for dismissal requires clear words or conduct from the employer; here, the employer's actions indicated ongoing employment. The claimant's claim for unfair dismissal and redundancy therefore failed.
Key takeaway for workers
If you are removed from a client site, do not assume you have been dismissed. Check with your employer, keep records of communications, and do not accept another role without first clarifying your employment status. A tribunal will look at the whole picture, including what the employer did after the removal.
Similar cases
Support Manager's constructive dismissal claim over role change fails
A Support Manager who resigned after her role was changed and workload reduced lost her constructive unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal found no breach of trust and confidence.
HGV driver resigned too soon over delayed pay: constructive dismissal claim fails
An HGV driver who resigned after a short delay in payment for three days' work lost his constructive unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal found he acted prematurely before the employer's conduct became repudiatory.
Recruitment coordinator's constructive dismissal claim over informal warning and bonus rejected
The tribunal dismissed claims of constructive unfair dismissal and breach of contract for non-payment of a discretionary bonus, finding no repudiatory breach of trust and confidence.
Constructive dismissal after suspension without pay and ignored grievance
A care worker on a zero-hours contract was constructively and unfairly dismissed after her employer suspended her without pay and failed to respond to her grievance. The tribunal found a fundamental breach of trust and confidence.