Mr D Meyer v Wolverhampton The Citizens Advice Bureau — 2022

Mr D Meyer worked for Wolverhampton The Citizens Advice Bureau as a part-time Pension Wise guidance specialist from 12 April 2018 until he resigned with immediate effect on 4 May 2020. He alleged constructive unfair dismissal based on the conduct of a colleague, the handling of his complaint and grievance, and the events leading up to his resignation. The tribunal identified the issue as whether the respondent had committed a fundamental breach of contract, whether that breach caused the resignation, and whether the claimant had affirmed the contract before resigning.

The tribunal accepted that the colleague had at times acted as though she had management responsibilities for the claimant, including reminders about leaving on time and overrunning meetings, and that she criticised a customer-related point in an observation debrief. It found those matters irksome and accepted that the claimant had been embarrassed by some of the comments, but it did not find them proved to be bullying or intimidation. On the 25 June 2019 incident, the tribunal accepted the colleague intervened in a customer matter, but found there were no formal rules giving the claimant ownership of customer relationships and did not classify that incident as bullying or intimidation.

The tribunal found that Emma Byrne’s handling of the matter after July 2019, including the pause and later resumption of observations, was not conduct likely to destroy or seriously damage trust and confidence. It also rejected the complaints about her email of 5 December 2019, Craig Alford’s email of 28 January 2020, the delay in the grievance process, the 1 and 29 April 2020 emails, and the Face2Face telephone calls. In each case the tribunal held that the respondent was acting within a reasonable grievance or management framework, that mediation was properly raised where the claimant had not lodged a formal grievance at that stage, or that the claimant had simply disliked the message rather than proved intimidation or repudiatory conduct.

Applying the authorities it cited, including Western Excavating, Woods, Malik, Omilaju, Wright and Kaur, the tribunal concluded that the respondent had not behaved in a way that was calculated or likely to destroy or seriously damage the relationship of trust and confidence, either individually or cumulatively. It added that if there had been any earlier breach, the claimant affirmed the contract by staying in employment until 4 May 2020, and that the final act relied on, the Face2Face calls, was not itself a repudiatory breach. The grievance was not upheld on 5 May 2020, and the unfair dismissal claim therefore failed.