Mr A McCollum v Honiton Town Council — 2022

Mr A McCollum was employed by Honiton Town Council from 24 July 2010 until 3 February 2021 and resigned on 4 January 2021, working his notice. The claim was for constructive unfair dismissal. The tribunal found that after the Claimant was elected a councillor in May 2019, concerns about conflict of interest were checked and external advice accepted that there was no conflict, although two councillors continued to believe otherwise.

The tribunal found that an independent code of conduct investigation into the Claimant's complaint about Cllr Taylor upheld two complaints, namely that Cllr Taylor was disrespectful and bullying in relation to the COVID-related market reopening matters. The tribunal held that this bullying, which occurred before the Claimant's sick leave, was a fundamental breach of contract. However, it found that the Claimant did not resign at that time and instead continued to look to the Respondent to resolve matters, including through his July 2020 grievance, later communications about returning to work, and the grievance process that was to be investigated by the HR Services Partnership.

The tribunal held that the Claimant had affirmed the contract by the time he resigned. It rejected the alleged breaches relating to the handling of the July and October 2020 grievances, the subject access request, and the role of councillors in his employment as fundamental breaches. It found the Deputy Town Clerk, Mrs Marlow, was not acting unreasonably, that the Respondent had agreed to investigate the July grievance and had taken steps to manage the issues, and that the Claimant was content with the course of action agreed at the 4 December 2020 sickness review meeting.

The final alleged straw was the 19 December 2020 incident involving the Assistant Market Manager, Mr Cracknell. The tribunal held that Mr Cracknell's conduct could not be attributed to the Respondent in this case because he was a junior employee, not a supervisor, and there was no evidence that he had been instructed or encouraged to abuse the Claimant. It also found that the Respondent had already discussed the December incidents with the Claimant, had agreed mediation and a timetable for dealing with the matter after Christmas, and had not failed to act. Because there was no unaffirmed fundamental breach at the point of resignation, the constructive dismissal claim failed and was dismissed.