Claimant v Respondent — 2021

The claimant worked for the respondent for about 16 years and resigned on 22 October 2019, with employment ending on 11 November 2019. The dispute arose after X made allegations against the claimant in August 2018, an investigation found there was no case to answer against the claimant, and the claimant later complained about X's conduct after the 28 December 2018 stairwell incident. The tribunal recorded that the respondent took supportive steps at various points, including reminders about the Employee Assistance Program, contact from management, suspension of X's access card, investigations into X's conduct, and later consideration of a facilitated meeting, occupational health input and possible redeployment.

The tribunal then addressed each alleged breach of contract relied on by the claimant as part of a last-straw case. It rejected the allegation that an email or concern from a colleague on 30 August 2018 had been sent to management; it also rejected the claimant's account that she had been told on or about 13 September 2018 that X was delusional about her and her husband plotting to kill him. The tribunal found that the respondent had reasonable and proper cause for the way it handled the later grievance issues, including the collective letter of concern from colleagues, the claimant's informal grievance of 10 April 2019 and formal grievance of 29 April 2019, the proposed facilitated meeting with X, and the communications sent on 18 April and 27 September 2019. It found that the respondent was entitled to say the claimant was coming across as hostile during the 16 August 2019 meeting, and that the respondent did offer support, including EAP, stress risk assessment, occupational health and the possibility of redeployment before the claimant resigned.

Looking at the conduct cumulatively, the tribunal held that none of the proven matters amounted to a breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence. Even if there had been an earlier breach, the tribunal found that the claimant had affirmed it by continuing to work without complaint for extended periods. It concluded that the effective reason for the resignation was the respondent's refusal to dismiss X, rather than any repudiatory breach by the respondent. As the constructive dismissal claim failed, the breach of contract claim for notice pay also failed, and no monetary award was made.