Mr Canning of counsel For the v Respondent — 2019

Mr Stroud resigned on 28 February 2019 after suspension and disciplinary and grievance proceedings arising from the 1 November 2018 water outage at Blackberry Hill Hospital. He claimed that the respondent’s conduct amounted to a fundamental breach of the implied term of trust and confidence, relying on a series of alleged mistreatments including the 22 October 2018 meeting, the handling of Lee Sollis’s up-banding, his suspension, the handling of his grievances, and the disciplinary process.

The tribunal rejected the claimant’s case that there had been a plan or conspiracy to remove him from his role. It found that the 2017 restructuring document was a genuine error, that the respondent had not agreed with Imagile to remove him, and that the short delay in informing him about Mr Sollis’s up-banding was not part of a wider plot. It also found that Mr Bolster had not told him he should leave the organisation because of Imagile, and had not said he would disregard the respondent’s organisational change policy.

On the 1 November 2018 incident, the tribunal found that the respondent was entitled to treat the matter as serious and to suspend the claimant with reasonable and proper cause, given the complexity of the situation, the vulnerability of some service users, and the claimant’s senior role. It held that the wording of the disciplinary allegations, the investigation process, the final written warning, and the handling of delay and grievance issues were unsatisfactory in places, but none of them amounted either individually or cumulatively to a repudiatory breach. The grievance outcome upheld only the complaint about the handling of the 22 October 2018 meeting; the wider conspiracy allegation and the suspension complaint were not upheld.

The tribunal concluded that there had been no fundamental breach of contract and therefore the claimant’s resignation could not be construed as a dismissal. It also found that, where breaches might otherwise have arisen, the claimant had affirmed the contract by continuing to engage with the disciplinary and grievance procedures. In the absence of a dismissal, the unfair dismissal claim failed and was dismissed.