Mr A German v UK Research and Innovation — 2021

Mr German worked in Innovate UK’s Space Team and was moved, as part of the respondent’s Transformation programme, into an Innovation Lead role in the Transforming Food Production challenge. He objected that the move did not make proper use of his space-sector expertise, raised a grievance, appealed, and resigned on 27 August 2019 after receiving a letter confirming that his reporting line and job title would change. The tribunal accepted that the process was unsettling and that parts of it could be criticised, but it found that the respondent was responding to a wider restructuring driven by changes in government funding strategy and that the claimant’s role had been mapped into a new structure rather than removed without more.

The constructive unfair dismissal claim failed because the tribunal was not satisfied that the respondent had acted in a way calculated or likely to destroy or seriously damage trust and confidence, or that there had been a breach of the express contractual term about role changes. It noted the initial 14 February 2019 meeting was handled badly, but relied on the later reassurance from Dr Webster, the union consultation, the availability of vacancies, and the grievance and appeal process conducted by senior independent managers. It also found that the claimant was offered opportunities to discuss the TFP role and that the absence of a job description did not amount to a barrier on the facts. On causation and timing, the tribunal found the resignation was principally caused by the offer of a new job on 25 August 2019 and, in any event, that the claimant had delayed too long after the 12 August 2019 letter.

In the alternative, the tribunal held that if there had been a dismissal it would have been due to a business reorganisation and fair within s.98(4) ERA 1996. It then rejected redundancy on the basis that there was no redundancy situation under s.139 ERA 1996: the respondent still required employees to do work of the relevant kind, and the Transformation programme was described as growth-based. The tribunal said the TFP role was objectively suitable alternative employment, but also found that the claimant was reasonably entitled to refuse it because his career aspirations were specifically to continue developing as a space specialist. The judgment therefore recorded no compensatory or basic award, and it noted that the grievance delay would not have justified any ACAS uplift even on the hypothetical basis considered for completeness.