Mr S Lulat v Bushell & Meadows Limited — 2019

The claimant, a machine operator on the twilight shift, complained after an incident on 5 March 2018 in which Mr Easthope swore at him. The tribunal found that the respondent responded to the grievance reasonably: it met with the claimant, asked what outcome he wanted, secured a personal apology from Mr Easthope on 30 April 2018, and gave Mr Easthope a written warning. The claimant accepted the apology at the time and signed a record of the meeting, and the tribunal found that the grievance had been resolved from the respondent’s perspective.

On 4 May 2018 the claimant was moved from the twilight shift to the day shift, with notice of the loss of the 30% shift premium. The tribunal accepted evidence that the change was driven by a reduction in aerospace work and the introduction of new machines, not by the grievance. Because the decision was made under contractual discretion, the tribunal applied a Wednesbury/Braganza approach and held that the respondent’s decision was based on relevant business factors, not on irrelevant considerations, and was not unreasonable or in breach of contract.

After occupational health input and meetings in October, November and December 2018, the respondent proposed a return to the twilight shift on different work in the blade section, with reduced contact with Mr Easthope and the possibility of a phased return. The tribunal found that this was an offer for further discussion, not a final imposed arrangement, and rejected the claimant’s criticisms that he would be isolated or necessarily forced to work closely with Mr Easthope. As none of the alleged acts amounted individually or cumulatively to a repudiatory breach, the tribunal held that there was no constructive unfair dismissal and dismissed the claim.