James Baron v Easyjet Airline Company Limited — 2022

Mr Baron had worked for EasyJet since 2006 and was promoted to Cabin Crew Manager in 2009. He later undertook upranking duties as a Crew Performance Manager/UCPM from May 2016, and the tribunal accepted that the 7 February 2017 letter described those duties as being undertaken "as and when the business needs you" while he continued in his substantive role as Flexi Crew Training Instructor. During the 2020 pandemic-related restructure, the claimant sought clarity about whether upranking would continue. The tribunal found that by September 2020 he had been told no assurances could be given, and that on 3 November 2020 senior managers decided to remove upranking responsibilities and Ms Stephens informed him of that decision. The claimant resigned on 21 December 2020 after a post-termination grievance was later investigated and not upheld.

The tribunal rejected the argument that removing the UCPM role amounted to a fundamental breach of an express contractual term. It found that the upranking role was not a fixed or guaranteed part of the claimant's contract, that the role was performed on an "as required" basis, and that the reference to payment for periods of up to 30 consecutive days did not create a minimum entitlement to upranking days. The tribunal also accepted the respondent's evidence that the removal of upranking did not make a material difference to the claimant's net salary and that there was no evidence the decision was irrational.

On the implied term of trust and confidence, the tribunal accepted that there had been delay in communication and that the claimant was frustrated, but held that the respondent still wanted to work with him and had made that clear, including reassurance that he remained part of succession planning. Applying an objective assessment, the tribunal held that the conduct was not such that the claimant could not reasonably have been expected to continue working for EasyJet. It also found that the claimant's resignation was not caused by the alleged breaches: by the time he resigned he had already become dismayed about his career prospects and had moved towards a Jet2 role that suited his personal circumstances better. The claim for unfair constructive dismissal therefore failed and was dismissed.