Jordan Stranack v StreetSharp Ltd CERTIFICATE OF CORRECTION Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 Under the provisions of — 2020

Mr Stranack brought a constructive unfair dismissal claim arising from his resignation on 13 March 2019, effective 29 March 2019, after a disciplinary process at a McDonald’s store that transferred from MacDonald’s Restaurants Ltd to StreetSharp Ltd on 18 March 2019. The tribunal directed itself by reference to section 95(1)(c) and section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and cited Western Excavating, Malik, Omilaju, Woods, Buckland, Sainsbury’s v Hitt, Marshall Specialist Vehicles, Sutherland v Hatton, Conry and Nottinghamshire County Council v Meikle, together with section 207A TULRCA 1992 and the ACAS Code.

The tribunal accepted the respondent witnesses as consistent and plausible, and found Mr Stranack less consistent in his evidence. It recorded that in November 2018 he had been seen on CCTV entering the female toilets with his phone and taking unrecorded breaks, but no action was taken. In February and March 2019 he was suspended after a Snapchat video captioned “How to make a cheeseburger”, attended investigation meetings on 7 and 12 March, and emailed a grievance on 11 March about being “stalked” by Mr Brookes. The tribunal found the 7 March meeting notice sent to his mother’s address caused no practical prejudice because he received it, attended, and did not seek an adjournment.

The tribunal rejected each alleged breach relied on as a basis for resignation. It found there was no actionable delay in the grievance process, no proved “stalking” by CCTV, no inconsistent treatment because Mr Hassan’s involvement was not known at the time, no established failure to address health and safety complaints about a CO2 alarm or mould, and no proved disclosure of the investigation to the workforce. It also found Mr Stranack did not raise the CO2 or mould concerns during employment and that some complaints post-dated his resignation.

On that basis the tribunal held there was no fundamental breach of contract, no constructive dismissal, and no causal link between the matters complained of and the resignation. The claim was dismissed and no monetary award was made. The tribunal noted, in the alternative, that had there been a breach it was likely he would have left within a few months in any event, but that did not affect the dismissal of the claim.